Pages

Wednesday, September 17, 2008

Are Perceptions Totally Subjective?

Zilch recently attempted to link the atheistic subjectivity of the concept of meaning to the proposed subjectivity of perception by stating (emphasis his):
I think you would agree that perception is "subjective" by your definition: my seeing a red hat, for instance, does not mean that you see a red hat: it is solely my perception. Of course, given the same or similar conditions, we might have similar perceptions, just as we might assign similar meanings to, say, the sight of a car veering off toward a group of deaf students. But my perception is in my mind, and does not affect your perception in your mind, unless I communicate it to you in some way.
The problem with that is perception is not solely in your mind at all (unless you do believe in the brain-in-a-vat theory). Indeed, if you perceived something that was only in your mind, that would be the definition of a delusion, wouldn't it?

The only way you can link perception and meaning is if you agree that objects have something that makes them meaningful in and of themselves. That is, meaning has to be objective in some way.

Consider it. We see a red hat. Even if the concept of "redness" is different for you than for me (that is, suppose that you see as the color "red" as what I see as the color "green") the fact remains that the object that we see exists and it exists in such a way that it absorbs all light except for that which we both perceive. That our perceptions are different is irrelevant here. After all, the object emits color X. The fact that your "red" is different from my "red" is irrelevant, because X itself is always labeled "red." The objective nature of X remains the same regardless of what we perceive.

But your idea of "meaning" is in no way similar at all. In atheism, objects do not exist with "meaning" attached to them in any way. There is no property "X" that conforms to "meaning" which we both perceive. Meaning is completely manufactured by you, and by you alone. Meaning totally exists within your subjective sphere and never shall depart it.

So your illustration is disanalogous.

I also find it interesting that you add: "unless I communicate it to you in some way." How can you communicate something that is completely subjective? Communication can only occur if you have ideas that transcend individuals, but that requires an objective sense for them. In the color example, the fact that X is objective allows us to communicate X to one another. We give X a specific label: "red." It doesn't matter how we perceive that, each of us labels our perception of X as "red" and therefore communication results.

In order to talk about meaning, you have to have an objective concept of meaning in place; but in your atheism, you've already said that meaning is itself completely subjective. It doesn't exist in the object, but in the "meaner." It is therefore impossible to communicate it.

Consider this: we can communicate colors because we link them to an objective fact. But suppose again that what I see as "red" you see as "green." This is a literal fact for the purposes of argument. But how do we communicate this to one another?

We cannot. I don't have access to your perception, so I can never compare it to what I perceive. All I have access to is what the object emits, and we both conventionally use the same label for that. So if our perceptions are different here, it is impossible for us to say they are different. I can never know that when you see color X that is labeled “red” you actually see what I call “green”, because I don’t have your perception.

In fact, the only way to determine that another's perceptions are actually different from ours is if they are unable to distinguish between the objective qualities of the object. For instance, my father is color-blind. He cannot see the color red at all. The problem for him arises not in the perceptual area, but instead in the objective area. That is, one object emits a color B and we call it "blue" and another emits the color P and we call it "purple." My father, who does not see the red in purple, says that B = P because to him both are "blue." We can tell this is wrong because we can see that B is NOT the same as P; there is a difference that he cannot see.

We know the problem not because we have access to his perceptions, but because we have access to the objects themselves. Thus, perception has an objective quality to it.

Meaning, however (according to your own stated views) does not have this objective quality at all. It is therefore impossible for atheists to talk about meaning at all, because meaning can never escape the subjective in atheism.

4 comments:

  1. Great post Peter!

    The timing of this post is wonderful because within this last week I've been mulling over the interrelationship between perception and attitude, trying to establish whether there is a unidirectional or bidirectional causal link between the two.

    I think it's bidirectional, but under varying circumstances which can't be easily defined.

    Perceptions --> Attitudes

    or

    Attitudes --> Perceptions?

    Tentative Conclusion:

    Attitudes < -- > Perceptions.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Peter,

    While I can't speak for Zilch, the distinction he appears to be making here is that, as beings that have exhibit the property of identity, I perceive my thoughts and perceptions as being separate from your thoughts and perceptions.

    This is one of the foundations in which many base their belief in various forms of dualism. (Whether dualism is an accurate representation of reality is a completely different subject, however, I think we would both agree that we perceive ourselves as having separate identities.)

    The only way you can link perception and meaning is if you agree that objects have something that makes them meaningful in and of themselves. That is, meaning has to be objective in some way.

    Not everyone who perceives the color blue perceives blue as their favorite color. In the same way, people who perceive existence as being temporary can also perceive a temporary existence as being meaningful. In fact, some think that an infinite existence would be meaningless since their would be no reason to do or complete anything. You could always wait until tomorrow, next week, next year, etc.

    If I argued that, based on this perspective, your position is irrational and inconstant because eternal existence is meaningless, would you not say I was sneaking my belief into my argument?

    But your idea of "meaning" is in no way similar at all. In atheism, objects do not exist with "meaning" attached to them in any way. There is no property "X" that conforms to "meaning" which we both perceive. Meaning is completely manufactured by you, and by you alone. Meaning totally exists within your subjective sphere and never shall depart it.

    We manufacture meaning individually. However, we can use things such as language to communicate a representation of this meaning to others.

    Consider this: we can communicate colors because we link them to an objective fact. But suppose again that what I see as "red" you see as "green." This is a literal fact for the purposes of argument. But how do we communicate this to one another?

    Studies have shown that, even when the ratio of color sensitive cells in our eyes vary up to 40 times from person to person, our brain can "color correct" the results so the majority of us see the same hue. This has been observed in action by people wearing colored contact lenses for extended periods of time.

    This shared physical response allows us to communicate colors.

    When displayed on a traffic light, we've associated the color red with the instruction to stop. Stop is not an inherent property of the color red, it's something we've communicated with each other. However, this was not an arbitrary choice. It was chosen specifically because of our shared physiological reaction to the color red.

    Meaning, however (according to your own stated views) does not have this objective quality at all. It is therefore impossible for atheists to talk about meaning at all, because meaning can never escape the subjective in atheism.

    If we were all single celled life forms, then yes - we could not communicate anything about meaning. However, we have evolved into conscious beings with a wide range of communication options at our disposal.

    But, until we decode and project the vastly complex electro-chemical states of the human brain, the actual individual meaning we subjectively create and perceive cannot leave our mind. Just as you perceive your thoughts to be separate from mine.

    All we can do is attempt to create accurate representations based on shared experiences, language, etc.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This is humorous,

    Regarding a previous point, Scott asks:

    If I argued that, based on this perspective, your position is irrational and inconstant because eternal existence is meaningless, would you not say I was sneaking my belief into my argument?

    Then, a moment later, in an effort to rebut the assertion that "meaning only exists in ones subjective sphere" (for the atheist), Scott says:

    We manufacture meaning individually. However, we can use things such as language to communicate a representation of this meaning to others.

    Scott,
    Would you not say that appealing to "language" in an effort to show how meaning could be shared is not just a little bit (ahem!) of sneaking your belief into the argument?

    Wow.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Brother Theophilus wrote: Would you not say that appealing to "language" in an effort to show how meaning could be shared is not just a little bit (ahem!) of sneaking your belief into the argument?

    Brother,

    This was a followup to another post. You might want to read it before making future comments.

    To summarize, Peter claimed that *based on what atheists themselves believe* we should be miserable and want to kill ourselves. The belief that a finite existence is meaningless was the point of contention.

    With the exception of openly questioning if each of us perceive ourselves as having identity, I'm not suggesting that Peter agrees with me or that he shares my belief about language. As such, I'm not *sneaking* my beliefs into my argument. Instead, I'm clearly presenting them as part of my position.

    This is humorous,

    Do you actually have a rebuttal to the points I presented or is this your entire argument?

    ReplyDelete