Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Scorpii

The Perceptive Paradox

5 posts in this topic

Perceptive Paradox

Philosophically, have you ever heard the phrase, “Everyone thinks that they are right” Awkwardly, this is true; however, we have to make an addition to the phrase to illustrate. “Everyone thinks that they are right even when they think that they are wrong.” Problematically, we know that everyone cannot be correct all at the same time because our reality is continually updating perceived truths. For example, the Catholic Church doesn’t dare hold to the claim that the earth is the center of the universe anymore. The church had their evidence, logic & reason in the Bible’s book of Genesis which confirmed & affirmed their perception of reality. However, paradoxically, what I’m doing is no different than what any pastor, philosopher, scientist, atheist, person etc does. I am presenting a perception of reality backed up with logic, reasoning & evidence to confirm some expressed ideas. The only difference is that I am aware that I am aware of such actions &, even though my purpose is simply progress in the understanding of the perception of reality, the byproduct seems to be a natural wider sense of survival.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Perceptive Paradox

Philosophically, have you ever heard the phrase, “Everyone thinks that they are right” Awkwardly, this is true; however, we have to make an addition to the phrase to illustrate. “Everyone thinks that they are right even when they think that they are wrong.” Problematically, we know that everyone cannot be correct all at the same time because our reality is continually updating perceived truths. For example, the Catholic Church doesn’t dare hold to the claim that the earth is the center of the universe anymore. The church had their evidence, logic & reason in the Bible’s book of Genesis which confirmed & affirmed their perception of reality. However, paradoxically, what I’m doing is no different than what any pastor, philosopher, scientist, atheist, person etc does. I am presenting a perception of reality backed up with logic, reasoning & evidence to confirm some expressed ideas. The only difference is that I am aware that I am aware of such actions &, even though my purpose is simply progress in the understanding of the perception of reality, the byproduct seems to be a natural wider sense of survival.

Actually, Genesis does not support or affirm that view, which is why there are Christians with degrees in astronomy, physics, etc. who understand and agree with currently held scientific views and can still also affirm that Genesis is a true, although stylized, account of creation. So, that means that what you are also doing either on purpose or by mistake is perpetuating an erroneous view. The Catholic Church may well have thought that the book of Genesis confirmed and affirmed that the Earth was the center of the universe, but even this thought is not really supported by history. After all, Galileo's research was actually supported by the Pope and many of the hierarchy of the Church. Galileo only ran into problems when he made his assertions while also ridiculing the Pope.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually, Genesis does not support or affirm that view, which is why there are Christians with degrees in astronomy, physics, etc. who understand and agree with currently held scientific views and can still also affirm that Genesis is a true, although stylized, account of creation. So, that means that what you are also doing either on purpose or by mistake is perpetuating an erroneous view. The Catholic Church may well have thought that the book of Genesis confirmed and affirmed that the Earth was the center of the universe, but even this thought is not really supported by history. After all, Galileo's research was actually supported by the Pope and many of the hierarchy of the Church. Galileo only ran into problems when he made his assertions while also ridiculing the Pope.

I don’t believe you fully understand my post. Let me clarify. Our perception of reality is continually evolving. The geocentric view of the universe was abandon when it was proven incorrect. In other words, people’s perception of the reality of the universe changed or evolved. I do not dispute your historical facts about the Catholic Church.

The perception paradox can explain with your last post. You believe that your post is correct based on what you perceive is true. You then used logic, reason & historical facts to support & explain that your perception. You are trapped in the perceptual paradox unknowingly because to you, your perception is correct. Hence, “Everyone thinks that they are right”. Likewise, my perception about this post is that it is right until my perception of reality is changed.

Edited by Scorpii

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry, either I do not understand what you're saying or you don't know what a paradox is:

par⋅a⋅dox   /ˈpærəˌdɒks/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [par-uh-doks]

–noun 1. a statement or proposition that seems self-contradictory or absurd but in reality expresses a possible truth.

2. a self-contradictory and false proposition.

3. any person, thing, or situation exhibiting an apparently contradictory nature.

4. an opinion or statement contrary to commonly accepted opinion.

The most famous example is the Liar paradox, "This statement is false" >if the statement is false, it is true...but if it is true, it is false....

It seems to me you are simply stating that "Everyone bases their assertions on data most recently available to them. Time brings new data hence assertions change"

If I were to look at the sky at sunrise and say "The sky is orange"; I would, based on my observations believe myself correct (rightly so). As the day progresses and it is later in the morning I look up to the sky and say "the sky is blue now". You are merely pointing out that people base assumptions on data and experience. A more accurate way of making a statement of fact is this: I make assertions depending on the information available to me at T1, if at T2 that information is different, I will revise my assertion.

Statements of fact are context dependent, if the context is sunrie or T1, our assertions are indeed true and later subject to change. This is common sense and not contradictory in any way.

The only way that this would become a paradox would be if you tried to get at YOU being "right" about "everyone thinking they're right". Group A holds opinions and believe themselves right, you stand outside group A and rather than comment on the subject-matter of their opinion instead say OF group A "they believe they are right"; hence your belief is that you are right about their perceptions. This isnt really paradoxical as all it does is place you in a larger category, like a scientist counducting a double-blind. If you were truly honest and accurate in your statement you would say "Based on my best observations at this time I assert that THEY believe themselves correct, though I may revise this later, given new information"

One CAN be wrong and accept it (without drawing a NEW conclusion and hence asserting this new point is "right"). Think back to your days of math class, being unable to solve a problem and your teacher telling you your answer is wrong. You do not know why, merely that it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One CAN be wrong and accept it (without drawing a NEW conclusion and hence asserting this new point is "right"). Think back to your days of math class, being unable to solve a problem and your teacher telling you your answer is wrong. You do not know why, merely that it is.

I like your response. I think that I may not be using the right words. All I’m saying is that we are bound by a logical perception of reality based on information. Paradoxes are false.

–noun 1. a statement or proposition that seems self-contradictory or absurd but in reality expresses a possible truth.

Self-contradictory is bound to our perception of an earlier time. Possible truth is bound to our perception of an earlier time. In the period of the geocentric system, if there were scientist debating on this topic, to them, this could have been seen as a paradox because both observations could be true. If you examine the Schrödinger's cat experiment, this is no different.

So, paradoxes don’t exist, yet they exist. They exist in our logical perception of reality.

Edited by Scorpii

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.