The books you never got around to reading
in Philosophy ·
As long as people still have the drive to write and the hunger to read, we'll never run out of new books.
Home ›
Kevin Flores87 › Posts
Posts by Kevin Flores87
4 posts shown.
Is there anything beyond human perception?
in Philosophy ·
To be honest, I’m a little lost on what the opening question is actually getting at: "Is there something we cannot perceive?"
Was the point to hunt for an answer that proves whether something exists or doesn't exist —or perhaps just to argue for the existence of something specific that we simply lack the human capacity to sense? Because look, just because someone can't perceive something doesn't mean it isn't there. Maybe it just doesn't exist for certain beings that lack the hardware to detect it, while it remains perfectly real for others. On the flip side, if something truly doesn't exist at all, it's pretty much impossible to define what exactly that thing is that "doesn't exist" and therefore can't be perceived. Then there’s the third option: that something does exist, but it’s fundamentally unperceivable to anyone, anywhere. If that's the case, then its existence is essentially irrelevant. And if it's irrelevant, it lacks any real essence—unless, of course, its whole purpose is to be irrelevant, 🙂since even the insignificant things help maintain the balance🤷
Was the point to hunt for an answer that proves whether something exists or doesn't exist —or perhaps just to argue for the existence of something specific that we simply lack the human capacity to sense? Because look, just because someone can't perceive something doesn't mean it isn't there. Maybe it just doesn't exist for certain beings that lack the hardware to detect it, while it remains perfectly real for others. On the flip side, if something truly doesn't exist at all, it's pretty much impossible to define what exactly that thing is that "doesn't exist" and therefore can't be perceived. Then there’s the third option: that something does exist, but it’s fundamentally unperceivable to anyone, anywhere. If that's the case, then its existence is essentially irrelevant. And if it's irrelevant, it lacks any real essence—unless, of course, its whole purpose is to be irrelevant, 🙂since even the insignificant things help maintain the balance🤷
Is there anything beyond human perception?
in Philosophy ·
Jessica Gonzalez7 said:Yes, but the question was phrased differently. 🙂
Consider an average person placed in a room where a sound is played at a frequency far beyond the range of human hearing. If asked what happened, they would say nothing. Hearing is merely one of many sensory possibilities, but let us assume this person had no other way to sense that sound.
The question remains:
If you were that person, does that sound exist, right now, in this very moment while you are incapable of perceiving it?
This implies that perception cannot be used as information provided by someone else, because, in that specific moment, that information simply did not exist.
If we assume a person lacks developed hearing and that's their only way to catch a sound, then for them, that sound doesn't exist. But the sound *does* exist, because that was our starting premise. It just doesn't exist for that specific individual. As a phenomenon, the sound exists on its own terms.
Is there anything beyond human perception?
in Philosophy ·
If we link the perception of something unknown to an illusion, where that illusion aligns perfectly with reality at the exact moment it occurs (like a deaf person experiencing the concept of sound), then for that individual, the sound truly exists.
So, sound exists for a deaf person if there is even a mere illusion of it within them. It doesn't matter how they define it or how much experience they have. The realization that "yes, that was actually a sound" might only hit them later, during social interaction with a hearing person who possesses the awareness to define the event for them.
In that scenario, the deaf person experiences a realization where the moment of perceiving the sound and the moment of the illusion overlap—which isn't strictly necessary for the sound's existence, but it is vital for the actual comprehension of it.
Essentially, I believe sound exists if the mental state of a deaf person aligns with the sound itself at the moment it happens. Even if they can't prove it, simply because they didn't consciously perceive the alignment happening.
So, sound exists for a deaf person if there is even a mere illusion of it within them. It doesn't matter how they define it or how much experience they have. The realization that "yes, that was actually a sound" might only hit them later, during social interaction with a hearing person who possesses the awareness to define the event for them.
In that scenario, the deaf person experiences a realization where the moment of perceiving the sound and the moment of the illusion overlap—which isn't strictly necessary for the sound's existence, but it is vital for the actual comprehension of it.
Essentially, I believe sound exists if the mental state of a deaf person aligns with the sound itself at the moment it happens. Even if they can't prove it, simply because they didn't consciously perceive the alignment happening.