Writegenstein #6: Meditations on Perception

We find certain things we see puzzling because we don’t find the business of seeing puzzling enough.

-Ludwig Wittgenstein (Philosophical Investigations 212)

Vision affords us a picture of reality. It needs no context or explanation unless our goal is to understand it, for most things, we merely see, and we don’t understand them. We so often take what we see at face value or, the opposite, infer something from it that is not there, based on conditioned expectations. Since we all possess different modes of perception and judgment and have different conditioning, there are unlimited interpretations of every picture.

To say that what is in our visual frame is the basis of our understanding, a full picture would be necessary — all of what came before, what is happening now both in and out of frame, and what is to come. This is impossible. Our visual field would be overloaded if we had access to everything at once.

It is, rather, the nature of human perception to filter all sense data and extract only what is relevant to the current intention, based on the knowledge and awareness of those objects present. We do not, conversely, see all that is present and construct a viewpoint on that basis. There will be very little construction, if any at all.

We mostly derive the meaning of objects from their uses. We do not define a pencil as a long, cylindrical stick filled with graphite. We define it as a writing utensil. If one had never encountered a pencil, he may not define it as a writing utensil, but perhaps as a stabbing tool.

Indeed, some who do know the intended use of a pencil may still define it as a stabbing tool.

However, if an object had no known utility, and one could not be found, then would it also lack an identity? Usage is an expression of a particular kind of understanding.

Objects that are known to us carry baggage in our minds. We have preconceptions of them.

It is not usage itself, but the totality of collective preconceptions that define a thing in itself.

We see a physical object at the low end of analysis, a concept at the highest end, and usage is somewhere in the middle. We exercise our will not to observe more of an object than we need to. If we have a conception of it already, we in fact need to see very little of it for the purposes of usage or understanding.

Philosophy is a study of concepts. It is also the study of distinctions – such as the one between physical objects, uses, and concepts that I am making right now. A distinction is a kind of concept.

The most common question a philosopher should ask is “what do you mean?”. Understanding meaning implies the understanding of a concept.

Definitions in response to the question “what do you mean?” are often frustratingly pragmatic, for most people think in pragmatic terms as to serve their own ends. This does not satisfy a truth-seeking philosopher, however. Pragmatism reduces to relativism – that we can create our own ends, and that attempts to justifies any means. It is the ends, however, that need questioning. Ends are products of the human will, and the human will alone has the capacity for moral judgment.

We sift through our visual field for relevant concepts. Higher cognitive functioning does so by spreading known concepts across all available objects, scanning them for a match. Lower functioning perception attempts to identify particular objects that the subject is familiar with.

Excluding intuitive knowledge (which is neither pragmatic nor empirical in nature), a wider range of objective knowledge will theoretically give us a larger pool of data from which to realize relevance. However, regardless of how large that pool is, realizing relevance must be founded on something deeper. We do not only sift objects based on what we know, for that would only allow us to apply existing knowledge without providing a basis for learning new concepts.

Whether conscious or unconscious, values provide a basis for action. The concepts that we associate with objects direct us to the relevant path for acting on those values. When the foundation of values is from inclination rather than conscious cultivation, we can merely observe our behaviors. It is not until we catch ourselves in an act that we can notice patterns in those behaviors over time. Then we go ahead correcting the values from the bottom-up. This is to learn life’s lessons the hard way. If we were more introspective, we would give more careful consideration to the values themselves.

Materialists mistake the brain for the input receiver when really it is the eyes and other sense apparatuses that receive input. The associations we make between objects and concepts are conditioned and can therefore be unlearned.

Fluid/creative intelligence is roughly the ability to see beyond the limited range of utility of an object as identified by convention, to virtually unlimited uses, and to be able to apply alternative uses when relevant. This is why tool use was such an important step in our evolution. This takes new forms today with the birth of a new technological device.

A severe lack of fluid intelligence is demonstrated by the creators of a device who intend a singular purpose or category of purposes for that device. They may be as low in fluid intelligence as they are high in computational intelligence. I would bet that there exists a negative correlation here, for the more intelligent one is, the more complexly they see the world. Everything is infinitely simple just as it is infinitely complex, however. This is why an unintelligent person is every bit as likely, perhaps even more so, to be wise.

One can intend a use for a new device, but that is not to say that people will not go about finding new uses for it. Technology itself, with its limited programming, cannot account for the infinite creativity of the human mind.

People who lack fluid intelligence lack foresight – they have to be shown that an idea works before they can see that it would.

However, we all see an object in accordance to its relevance to our existing knowledge and intended purposes.

Whether to see an object as a tool for a defined goal or an unconscious psychological one, such as to preserve the ego, makes no difference. This is still to limit the essence of a thing to a pragmatic conception. Whether or not that conception is in accordance with what is the case depends on how the drive for that goal is founded. The essence of the object can only be realized outside of the pragmatic context set by a subject.

We so often jump to a judgment, not only without thinking about and understanding what we have observed, but without thinking about and understanding how we are observing. Our data will be insufficient in this case, and so will our judgment be a reaction based on preconditioned beliefs and modes of perception.

Truth is not relative, however, insofar as we can observe ourselves and sharpen our perceptive tools.

To believe that truth is relative is to presuppose that improvement is impossible. “Improvement toward what?”, I would ask.

Relativism also presupposes the existence of truth. To claim that truth does not exist is a truth-claim.

Self-awareness is a prerequisite for real objective knowledge. You cannot know others until you know yourself. You cannot understand others until you understand yourself. You cannot love others until you love yourself. This goes for group as well as individual settings.

To be self-aware is to understand your own conditioning. It is your responsibility to to work diligently to peel back those layers so your core may be exposed and so that you may operate without those conditioned restraints. The result is vulnerability which causes many short-term struggles for the benefit of deeper connections, and authenticity which leads to the elimination of superficial connections for the sake of infinite long-term potential in every area on your life.

You have no control over your environment, but only over how you respond to it.