|
Redefining perception The ancient Charvaka claimed that (sense) perception is the
sole valid means to truth.1 The New Oxford Dictionary defines perception as: ‘the
ability to see, hear, etc, become aware of something through the senses.’2 However, modern science has demonstrated that the
‘senses’ serve as selective and limited data receiving devices. For that
reason, reception (formerly called perception3) is incomplete
and biased, hence cannot serve as ‘valid means to truth’.4 Moreover, the data processing carried out by the
brain5 and which produces analogue awareness quanta6 is selective
and programming dependent.7 Hence an observer’s awareness of the outcome of
his/her limited and selective data processing, i.e. a personal, user friendly
(analogue) icon, and limited and selected data acquisition can best be
described as anecdotal.8 Consequently an observer’s (or
receiver’s) awareness moment/icon is not valid9 truth. In
other words, data reception does not represent a data emitter’s true (indeed
whole) state.10 It follows that the ancient Charvaka’s claim that perception
alone is a valid means to truth is not true.11 All of which begs the question: How is true/truth defined?’ © 2022 by
Victor Langheld |
1. The
non-relativised word/noun ‘truth’ describes a meaningless concept. With
regard to an interaction one can only state: true (real, undeniable) or less
than true. The notion of untrue/false, like all negatives, is thinkable but
unrealistic. more ….. 2. The NOD’s vague
and naïve definition of perception might be more usefully updated to
the 21st century with the notion of ‘the procedure of data
accessing’. Once this is done the sheer complexity of the dynamic
perception procedure becomes apparent. 3. A cognisable
perception consists of two elements. The first is one-end data (hence
percept) contact that generates an isness (i.e.
realness) moment because happening in a relativity vacuum. The second is the
affect of a series of contacts which when repeating or reverberating (like a
string) becomes identifiable, indeed cognizable. Since each individual
contact (of a series or string) creates an isness moment, the
entire series or string, cognised as an identified unit or quantum, is
carried on a realness ground. This
leads to the false experience that (actually discrete moments of) realness (Sanskrit: sat) happens as a
constant (or universal). Idem (the discrete moments of) consciousness
(Sanskrit: cit), i.e. as the
coming together of knowledge bits/moments). 4. Because
relative, hence uncertain, hence unreliable. (Not more than possibly, later
probably true = sufficient) Perceptions are by and large acted upon as true
in order to generate immediate responses required for survival. In other
words, a perception (i.e. a percept series become realist concept) is taken
as true if it increases survival capacity. 5. The brain
serves as biological navigation system (short: Bio-Nav),
initially as auto-pilot but with increasing complexity emerging de-automized,
i.e. with hands-on capability. 6. i.e. user
friendly iconised data compressions. 7. i.e. processing
is relative and selective, hence incomplete, hence uncertain. 8. Hence the
awesome nonsense produced by the Indian Brahmin scholiast, Adi Shankara, when he claimed: “True because written!” 9. Because not
absolute. In other words, the individual contacts are true but the message of
the contact series is dodgy = uncertain. 10. Moreover,
because the data emitter, i.e. the truth source, emits only selected and
limited data. 11. In this regard
see also Jayāraśi’s Tattvôpaplavasimha
(AD 740 - 800). |