“Seeing Things”

by K. C. Cole

Study Guide

Introduction:     In order to further our understanding of reality, modern particle and astro- physicists must “see” indirectly to make discoveries.  They do this by analyzing patterns, interpreting graphical data displays, and by computation to name some methods. 

Thesis:              All “seeing” is indirect and limited by the kind of “detector” we use.  The instruments of science are just the same as our personal one – the brain.  If we understand that, then we understand that personally perceived reality is no more or less valid than that of science (and vice versa), even if the latter seems more difficult to perceive. 

Main Point:       Human beings are “narrow-minded,” i.e., “narrow-sensed.”  The spider web analogy illustrates this.  To avoid remaining narrow-minded, we must overcome the limitations of our instrument, the brain.

The mind does this.

                        It can employ “leaps of imagination” to help us gain additional perspective.

                        Our minds can turn off our instrument: things we can’t see are things we don’t see because we ignore them.

                        Our minds sort information from the noise the instrument collects.  It may be very powerful to be able to do that.  Or it can be quite dangerous!

                        Our minds learn sensory atrophy.  On the other hand, sometimes we suffer sensory overload, which can cause the mind to perceive the opposite of the signals the instrument actually receives. 

Main Point:       David Bohm’s definition and purpose statement about science are to be used.  We are to understand that our view or the universe changes with time, but the truth never does.

                        The difference between scientific perception and personal perception is that scientific information is more easily shared; is demonstrable; and is repeatable.  That gives it hierarchical precedence.

                        Still, both scientific and personal (I can see for myself) perception involve secondary information.

                        Because scientific knowledge these days completely contradicts our personal senses it is difficult to accept certain concepts.  It’s a good thing our minds can transcend our instrument! 

Main Point:       Seeing is highly subjective and depends on what we look for and our point of view.

                        Perhaps the only wrong perspective is one that insists on a single perspective.  (A definition of narrow-mindedness, perhaps?)

                        Because the mind must “make sense” of the data collected by the instrument, it compares that data to what is personally familiar – images stored from the past.  So, how well we make sense of the world depends on our collection of past data (raw and interpreted). 

                        In the face of something unique we are blind!  Or, just as dangerous, we only “see” what we “believe.”  The implications about are beliefs are frightening.

                        Hearing behaves the same way.  Conversational memory is not a recording, it’s more like an evolving sculpture (perception).

                        Seeing is also culturally conditioned.  The unfamiliar, likewise, can appear impossible; therefore, we might (stupidly?) dismiss it.

Conclusion:       Our discussion of perception has broad implications for scientists, political theorists, theologians, and students.

                        Remember!  Your perceptive abilities are limited, but that doesn’t mean indirect observation, leaps of insightful imagination, or new frames of reference equate to saying that objective reality does “not really exist.”  To think so is to commit a fallacy of changing the definitions of “really and “reality” from one thing to another in midstream.

                        While we cannot eliminate subjective aspects of perception, we can subdue them.

                        The strength of our knowledge is buoyed by the connections between our observations and assumptions.  And that is improved, in turn, by testing over time in the full awareness of the shortcomings of our instrument, our points of view, and our frames of reference.

Thought to take away:               “Know thyself. . . Know thy perceptual self.”