Three Systems of Human Perception

Three Systems of Human Perception

"Empiricism (empirical) Perception; Perception by means of Rationalism; Faith Perception A. Definition. 1.) Basically there are three systems of human perception. a. Faith is a non-meritorious system of perception based on confidence in the authority and the veracity of another. Faith is not based on one’s own knowledge, as is rationalism or empiricism. b. Rationalism is reason from the source of knowledge in itself, superior to and independent of any other source of perception. Rationalism says that reality is what you think to be true. Rationalism requires a high I.Q., from which systems of philosophy are often developed. c. Empiricism is knowledge from perception by observation and experience rather than by theory. All ideas are derived from some sensuous experience using the eyes, ears, nose, touch, etc., having no innate conceptions. 2.) Perception by faith is always non-meritorious. It depends on the authority, veracity, and ability of someone else. Faith requires authority. 3.) Faith also means a system of doctrine or a creed perceived by faith; i.e., what is believed."

http://wisdomknowledge.wordpress.com/2010/01/08/the-doctrine-of-faith/

"Faith is the spur that drives people forward to discover Truth. However, it can be misplaced and cannot be a system of perceiving absolute Truth." Yes, Pianoman1, if confidence in someone's ability or authority or veracity is in doubt. Wouldn't the same criteria hold true for Rationalism if reasoning from premises and postulates which may be in error? "It has become a big thing simply because the clarification never came." Penguin, thanks for your patience in waiting for my reply; let's hope this delineation clarifies the issues. "Faith perception to me means someone perceiving another person as having faith." sonhouse, yes, "Faith also means a system of doctrine or a creed perceived by faith; i.e., what is believed." -Bob (1 of 3)

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
a. [b]Faith is a non-meritorious system of perception based on confidence in the authority and the veracity of another.[/b]

How does one gain confidence in an authority? Does one do so arbitrarily, or does one judge them using the other two system?
If a group of politicians you don't like, and don't trust, tell you a tsunami is heading your way, you would probably believe them. (if you live by the sea and there was a recent earthquake). Is this 'faith perception' or not?

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Three Systems of Human Perception

Its not clear from your post whether you think there are three ways to learn about the world, all of which may be useful in different circumstance, or whether you think they are mutually exclusive claims about how the world may be known.

According to the dictionary Rationalism and Empiricism are mutually exclusive claims, ie supporters of rationalism will say that learning through Faith or pure sensory methods (Empiricism) is impossible. Similarly Empiricists will say that Rationalists are wrong.
So do Faithists believe that Rationalism and Empiricism are wrong, or are you using the terms to refer to their underlying methods of learning?

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
[b]Three Systems of Human Perception

"Empiricism (empirical) Perception; Perception by means of Rationalism; Faith Perception A. Definition. 1.) Basically there are three systems of human perception. a. Faith is a non-meritorious system of perception based on confidence in the authority and the veracity of another. Faith is not base ...[text shortened]... means a system of doctrine or a creed perceived by faith; i.e., what is believed." -Bob (1 of 3)[/b]

"Faith is the spur that drives people forward to discover Truth. However, it can be misplaced and cannot be a system of perceiving absolute Truth."

I disagree. I say that curiosity is the spur that drives people forward to discover Truth. I don't think faith drives people to discover anything.

Your reply also seems somewhat confused as to a difference between 'Faith' and 'Faith Perception': Sonhouse described what he thought 'Faith Perception' might be and you replied by agreeing but then added that 'Faith' (note: 'Faith', not 'Faith Perception' ) was also something else.

You appear to be very muddled!

--- Penguin

Originally posted by Penguin
"Faith is the spur that drives people forward to discover Truth. However, it can be misplaced and cannot be a system of perceiving absolute Truth."

I disagree. I say that curiosity is the spur that drives people forward to discover Truth. I don't think faith drives people to discover anything.

Your reply also seems somewhat confused as to ...[text shortened]... h Perception' ) was also something else.

You appear to be very muddled!

--- Penguin

Hi, Penquin. Thanks for christening the thread. Your first quotation belongs to Pianoman1. I agreed with him in his own thread on page 20 and with you here now. The reply to sonhouse quotes point 3.) in the OP; the word "Faith" is used both in the transitive sense and the possessive; "faith perception" simply acknowledges the former. You and I are in agreement.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
[b]Three Systems of Human Perception

"Empiricism (empirical) Perception; Perception by means of Rationalism; Faith Perception A. Definition. 1.) Basically there are three systems of human perception. a. Faith is a non-meritorious system of perception based on confidence in the authority and the veracity of another. Faith is not base ...[text shortened]... means a system of doctrine or a creed perceived by faith; i.e., what is believed." -Bob (1 of 3)[/b]

I think the blogger who sourced your information was probably smoking something.

Empiricism and rationalism are not "systems of perception". They represent competing theses regarding some epistemologic questions, such as the question of how one can come to knowledge and concepts thereof. Roughly, an empiricist might claim, for some area of discourse, that the only source we have for our knowledge/concepts is sense experience; whereas a rationalist would deny this.

It seems that what your blogger means to say is just that he/she thinks there are three ways of coming to knowledge/understanding: (1) faith, which is putatively a "non-meritorious" (whatever that means) way of basing your belief in the authority/veracity of another (2) ways dependent on observation and sense experience (3) ways independent of observation and sense experience. Your blogger also implies that (1) is independent of (2) and (3). Problem is, that cannot be true: (2) and (3) are already mutually exhaustive. If 'faith' is definitionally about confidence in another, surely that should be based on some evidence by way of observation/experience and rational considerations that justify the idea that this other person is a reliable source of testimony. Right? So, I don't know what your blogger is talking about. 'Faith' in this sense is just placing your trust in another, like when you believe a medical expert upon being provided a diagnosis. Of course, whether or not such trusting attitude is justified depends on considerations that surely do have experiential and rational dimensions. Not sure why your blogger says this is "non-meritorious" (or even what it means to say that something is meritorious or not in this context); and I don't understand why your blogger thinks this is in its own category distinct from the empiricism/rationalism concepts that he/she grossly misrepresents in that blog.

Originally posted by LemonJello
I think the blogger who sourced your information was probably smoking something.

Empiricism and rationalism are not "systems of perception". They represent competing theses regarding some epistemologic questions, such as the question of how one can come to knowledge and concepts thereof. Roughly, an empiricist might claim, for some area of discours ...[text shortened]... istinct from the empiricism/rationalism concepts that he/she grossly misrepresents in that blog.

As always, thanks for weighing in with your opinions; I enjoy your vocabulary usage and debater's technique style.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
[b]Three Systems of Human Perception

"Empiricism (empirical) Perception; Perception by means of Rationalism; Faith Perception A. Definition. 1.) Basically there are three systems of human perception. a. Faith is a non-meritorious system of perception based on confidence in the authority and the veracity of another. Faith is not base ...[text shortened]... means a system of doctrine or a creed perceived by faith; i.e., what is believed." -Bob (1 of 3)[/b]

Human perception, wouldn't that be hearing, seeing, touching, tasting, and
feeling?
Kelly

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
[b]Three Systems of Human Perception

"Empiricism (empirical) Perception; Perception by means of Rationalism; Faith Perception A. Definition. 1.) Basically there are three systems of human perception. a. Faith is a non-meritorious system of perception based on confidence in the authority and the veracity of another. Faith is not base ...[text shortened]... means a system of doctrine or a creed perceived by faith; i.e., what is believed." -Bob (1 of 3)[/b]

Is there a place for intuition in how we perceive the cosmos? So many of my greatest eureka moments have been arrived at intuitively - a sort of gut feeling that something is right.

Originally posted by Pianoman1
Is there a place for intuition in how we perceive the cosmos? So many of my greatest eureka moments have been arrived at intuitively - a sort of gut feeling that something is right.

Thats basically your brain doing behind the scenes thinking. I would say a significant proportion of our knowledge is in this category, ie we know something is so, but do not recall how we learnt it and were not aware we were learning it when we did.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Human perception, wouldn't that be hearing, seeing, touching, tasting, and
feeling?
Kelly

"c. Empiricism is knowledge from perception by observation and experience rather than by theory. All ideas are derived from some sensuous experience using the eyes, ears, nose, touch, etc., having no innate conceptions."

One of three means of human perception, Kelly.

Originally posted by Pianoman1

Is there a place for intuition in how we perceive the cosmos? So many of my greatest eureka moments have been arrived at intuitively - a sort of gut feeling that something is right.

What is Synchronicity? "A Wink from the Cosmos," by Meg Lundstrom

"Earl was trying to track down an out-of-print book called The Adventures of Marco Polo. He scoured two used book stores in New York City, had no success, and caught a taxi to a third. The cab driver was unusually chatty, and during their conversation, Earl glanced at his license on the dashboard. His name? Marco Polo!

Art was sitting at his computer typing an e-mail missive when his cat Coal jumped from his lap onto the keyboard. Before Art's startled eyes, as the cat shifted from key to key, its paws tapped out the word emerson on the screen. "To make it even weirder, I've been studying Ralph Waldo Emerson intently for the past year, and the study has taken on a very symbolic meaning to me," he says, still in shock. "My wife was sitting next to me at the computer, and if I'm sent away for being crazy, she has to go, too!"

The uncanny coincidence. The unlikely conjunction of events. The startling serendipity. Who hasn't had it happen in their life? You think of someone for the first time in years, and run into them a few hours later. An unusual phrase you'd never heard before jumps out at you three times in the same day. On a back street in a foreign country, you bump into a college roommate. A book falls off the shelf at the bookstore and it's exactly what you need.

Is it only, as skeptics suggest, selective perception and the law of averages playing itself out? Or is it, as Carl Jung believed, a glimpse into the underlying order of the universe? He coined the term synchronicity to describe what he called the "acausal connecting principle" that links mind and matter. He said this underlying connectedness manifests itself through meaningful coincidences that cannot be explained by cause and effect. Such synchronicities occur, he theorized, when a strong need arises in the psyche of an individual. He described three types that he had observed: the coinciding of a thought or feeling with an outside event; a dream, vision or premonition of something that then happens in the future; and a dream or vision that coincides with an event occurring at a distance. No one has come up with a definition that has superceded his, although there has been debate on whether events linked to precognition and clairvoyance should be included as synchronicity.

Some scientists see a theoretical grounding for synchronicity in quantum physics, fractal geometry, and chaos theory. They are finding that the isolation and separation of objects from each other is more apparent than real; at deeper levels, everything -- atoms, cells, molecules, plants, animals, people -- participates in a sensitive, flowing web of information. Physicists have shown, for example, that if two photons are separated, no matter by how far, a change in one creates a simultaneous change in the other.

Whatever its cause, the appeal of synchronicity runs deep. "People love mysterious things, and synchronicity is like magic happening to them," says Carolyn North, author of Synchronicity: The Anatomy of Coincidence (Regent Press). "It gives us a sense of hope, a sense that something bigger is happening out there than what we can see, which is especially important in times like this when there are so many reasons for despair."

The more pragmatic a person, the greater a surprise a synchronistic incident is -- even mild ones of the sort that happen to most people sooner or later. For example, Bruce, a corporate lawyer, was stunned the day that, just as he was getting ready to dial his father, he picked up the phone and heard his father's voice on the other end -- calling him. "I said, 'Holy smokes!' We were both dumbfounded!" he recalls. For a moment in time, synchronicity shattered their assumptions of cause-and-effect reality.

Some people, however, would shrug and call this intuition. How are the two different? At first blush, synchronicity and intuition seem to be separate phenomena. Synchronicity happens "out there": against the odds, something in the Universe seems to swing into place to answer an inner need we have. Intuition happens "in here": it's an inner knowing, an ability to tune into knowledge in a nonrational, nonlinear way. We know something but we don't know how we know it.... "

http://www.flowpower.com/What%20is%20Synchronicity.htm

Note: Pianoman1, though these observations conclude that the "ability to tune into knowledge in a nonrational, nonlinear way" defines the phenomena you describe, my view is that it's a rational perception: from a confluence of events, which our subconscious and memory storage combine to produce recognitions of which we would otherwise be unaware. Fascinating!

Originally posted by KellyJay
Human perception, wouldn't that be hearing, seeing, touching, tasting, and
feeling?
Kelly

Yes it would, KJ. This is another reason why the content of the blog is confused and confusing, given the way 'perception' is commonly employed. Alas, neither the blogger nor GB seem congnizant of this source of confusion. They are using a sense of the word that relates more broadly to general understanding, I think.

Originally posted by LemonJello
Yes it would, KJ. This is another reason why the content of the blog is confused and confusing, given the way 'perception' is commonly employed. Alas, neither the blogger nor GB seem congnizant of this source of confusion. They are using a sense of the word that relates more broadly to general understanding, I think.

"Faith also means a system of doctrine or a creed perceived by faith; i.e., what is believed." -Bob (1 of 3)"

Perhaps the next two installments will answers your unasked questions and clarify the means of human perception.

all that matters is TRUTH