Sat, 21 Apr 2007
03:44:59 PDT
Physicist
David Bohm talks about truth and perception. You can find the entire interview
at: billangelos.typepad.com
This video clip is fascinating!! David Bohm describes perception as an active
process, and goes on to say that “everything is appearance even our thoughts
are fundamentally appearances, how things appear to the mind” (2:35 in the
video). We acquire many views of
something we are perceiving, views which we integrate to arrive at a coherent
understanding; the more views we accumulate and combine, the deeper our
understanding. However, the “true being”,
or the reality is illusive because no matter how many views we integrate there
is always a different, or deeper, or smaller grained view. In his discussion of the circle he breaks it
down into progressively smaller pieces until he arrives at quarks, with the
implication being that someday we may discover something smaller than
quarks. This, of course, is a series of
physical breakdowns, or views, but there is the potential for as many or more
views of all things. What’s fascinating
about this is the question, “What do we really know?” or “Is there really an
absolute knowledge that we can obtain?”
Based on what we are learning here, I would think not. This reminds me of chapter 12 in the Blank
Slate. Pinker talks about relativists
and says “Appealing to “facts” or “the truth” is just a ruse, relativists say,
because there is no “truth” in the sense of an objective yardstick independent
of cultural and political presuppositions.”
In terms of my own experience, I think about my childhood and realize
that I really don’t know what the truth is.
I know what my truth is, but as I don’t know anyone who knew me before I
was 15, not only do I only have only my own perception, I also can’t shape or
refine that perception because there aren’t other views to contribute. However, Pinker does go on to discuss
conceptual categories and the fact that this kind of intelligence works because
“the world really does contain ducks, which really do share properties.” Hence, I may not know an absolute truth, but
I do know the relative truth.
I like the parallel between absolute and relative truth. There are so many philosophical connections here! Who is to know whether one's "version of the truth" is ACTUALLY the "truth" or not? For all I know, the way I perceive "purple" is completely different than the way my best friend perceives purple.
ReplyDeleteIt most definitely is an interesting topic! I've thought about this a whole lot.
DeleteC.S Lewis (one of my favorites) talks about perception of truth and uses a metaphor that reminds me of the concept of "individual truth" being described:
"The reason why your idea of New York can be truer or less true than mine is that New York is a real place, existing quite apart of what either of us thinks. If when each of us said "New York" each meant merely "The town I am imagining in my own head", how can one of us have truer ideas than the other?" (Mere Christianity, 11).
Obviously, Lewis believes there is an actual truth that exists separately from the world,therefore, because of that existence, there is a clear right and wrong. It is on faith that he makes this assertion, but it does provide an interesting counter-argument. I highly doubt that the position will ever be resolved between relative and absolute truth or reality but it does make a person wonder, doesn't it?
I think that Lewis would argue that when the color wheel was decided upon, and its creator picked a color and named it purple, that particular original hue would be known as the true purple. Therefore, based on that truth, someone could have a more or less correct perception of what the color "purple" is merely because the true color exists beyond the comparison.
I think that the comparison between absolute truth and relative truth is very interesting; I'm really glad to get to hear everyone's thoughts!
Karen,
ReplyDeleteThis is a great video! I like how he describes perception as a dynamic process that involves a constant input of differing sensations. You're caught between the desire to "know" while recognizing the ultimate "reality" of perhaps not "knowing." Hopefully that makes sense. :) Check out my post on synesthesia (Activity 4.1). I wonder what Bohm would have to say in regard to it.