[Re:] Constraints on PERCEPTION ...

[Thomas Schlemmermeyer]

Thank you for this iluminating and insightful comments.

Perceptions of scientists are still orders of magnitude more constrained than
perceptions of normal individuals, for two simple reasons:

1.) Our work is peer-reviewed
2.) Our work is usually not financed by ourselves

            Cheers,   Thomas


On (         Wed, 18 Aug 1999 11:27:00 +0100
),         Ray Lester <R.Lester at NHM.AC.UK> wrote:


>Indeed there ARE constraints on each of our individual 'perceptions' of
>'reality'; and I personally would go further than Stephan allowed himself
>to do - as I did recently in a piece I wrote about 'Metadata' where I
>quoted from Brian Magee's 'Confessions of a Philosopher':
>
>"In devising systems for the handling of information - other than at a very
>simple level - I suspect that perfection is inherently unattainable. One of
>the parts of Bryan Magee's Confessions of a Philosopher which I did think
>that I understood and certainly empathized with summarized Kant's insight
>that 'what we human beings can think, perceive, know, experience, or be
>aware of in any way at all depends not only on what the reality is with
>which we have to deal but also on the apparatus we have for doing those
>things - our human bodies  with their senses, nervous systems and brains
>What is just is  independently of us and the apparatus with which we
>happen to find ourselves equipped; and we have no grounds whatsoever for
>believing that reality, the totality of what exists, coincides with what we
>are able to apprehend '.
>
>"And then, later, Magee goes on to write: 'The limit of human knowledge
>consists not only of a boundary beyond which we cannot apprehend anything.
>What we can and do apprehend within that boundary is also of a limited
>nature, though in a different way. If I look smack at the Empire State
>Building, head-on, I may feel that I am in the most immediate and direct
>possible contact with it - there it is, right there, straight in front of
>me, the Empire State Building, and I am looking at it right now - but the
>fact remains that it does not pop into my head. What is inside my head is
>not the Empire State Building but a set of visual data which I interpret as
>being the Empire State Building  All our sensory perception of the
>external world is of this character  And it is only of things as they
>appear to us that we can have any knowledge or awareness: whatever it is
>that they are in themselves must for ever remain inaccessible to us human
>beings.'
>
>"If Kant did indeed capture the essence of an individual's 'perception' of
>'reality' - that it is, indeed, 'individual' - the quest for agreement on
>how specific pieces of (digital) stuff should be unambigously and uniquely
>identified and characterised can be unending ..."
>
>
>>Priority: normal
>>X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.52)
>>Date:         Wed, 18 Aug 1999 10:04:33 BST
>>Reply-To:     Stephan Helfer <S.Helfer at RBGE.ORG.UK>
>>Sender:       Taxacom Discussion List <TAXACOM at USOBI.ORG>
>>From:         Stephan Helfer <S.Helfer at RBGE.ORG.UK>
>>Organization: Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh
>>Subject:      Constraints
>>To:           TAXACOM at USOBI.ORG
>>
>>Dear all
>>
>>Bill Shear wrote:
>>
>>> Evolutionary biologists, on the other hand, have the advantage of no
>>> constraints save observable physical law.
>>
>>It would be wonderful if this was true. Instead, I believe,
>>evolutionary biologists, like everybody else, are constrained by a
>>tradition, albeit a younger one. This is no problem, as long as it is
>>recognised that there are PERCEPTIONS of reality on both sides of the
>>creationist / evolutionist divide. The trouble is that these
>>perceptions are used as substitutes of the reality (whatever it is)
>>itself. I believe (and have empirical corroboration of this every
>>day) that the reality in the natural world is more complex by orders
>>of magnitude than my perception of that reality. There is no reason
>>to believe that anyone else is different in this respect. In other
>>words: it is good to recognise ones own limitations and that of ones
>>perceptions (I suppose, I better stop here).
>>
>>
>>Best wishes
>>
>>Stephan Helfer
>>Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh
>>
>>http://www.rbge.org.uk
>>========================================================
>>"With the destruction of each component of wild life one
>>more piece of evidence for human ignorance is removed."
>>
>>
>
>Ray
>
>*** PLEASE NOTE NEW TELEPHONE NUMBERS BELOW ***
>
>Dr Ray Lester
>Head of Library & Information Services
>The Natural History Museum
>Cromwell Road
>London  SW7 5BD
>United Kingdom
>
>020 7942 5261; fax 020 7942 5559
>
>e-mail: r.lester at nhm.ac.uk
>
>'Organising, preserving, and communicating knowledge of the natural world'
>


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Schlemmermeyer
Museu de Zoologia, Universidade de S?o Paulo
Caixa Postal 42694
CEP 04299-970
S?o Paulo, SP, Brasil

Resid?ncia:
Thomas Schlemmermeyer
Caixa Postal 00276
CEP 14001-970
Ribeir?o Preto, SP, Brasil

Fone, Fax: 016 6371999
------------------------------------------------------------------------------