The Perceiver

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

Before I begin, I wish to define what I mean when I say “perceiver.” Perceiver can be defined as consciousness, awareness, subjectivity, and perception in general. Every time I mention “perceiver,” remember to apply those four words to what it is I’m saying as well. Perceiver is not to be misunderstood as a “who,” but should be understood as an it. Perceiver is what inhabits any vessel allowing it to do so. That is, any vessel complex enough to sustain the necessary requirements for perceiver (subjection) to be occurring within it. What we would call brains. From insects to humans, it is not partial. An inevitable end product of energy materializing and undergoing evolution. Just as something that observes is an observer, what perceives is perceiver. Keep this clear throughout your read.

Imagine the hypothetical scenario in which only one conscious organism exists, organism A. Organism A possesses an evolved material body/brain (allowing the ability to perceive) just like ourselves. Organism A is the only form consciousness (perceiver) is taking on. In this scenario, we can literally define consciousness (perceiver) as organism A.

Consciousness (perceiver) = organism A. This is because organism A is existing as the only expression of consciousness, giving us the ability to literally define consciousness as organism A.

Now lets say a second consciousness spawns in this same universe, which we’ll call organism B. Perceiver (consciousness) must then be defined as organism A and organism B.

Consciousness (perceiver) = organism A and organism B. Perceiver is no longer definable as only organism A, because it now exists as two different expressions. Organism A and organism B are two different expressions of the same thing; i.e. perceiver (consciousness). Therefore consciousness is necessarily defined as both organism A and organism B.

Organism A can perceive organism B, feeling as if it is its own completely separate and unique consciousness observing the completely separate and unique consciousness that is organism B (and vise versa). The question here: Despite the fact that we have established that the consciousness of both organism A and organism B are two expressions of the same thing, why do both organisms perceive each other from their own unique perspective (point of observation), making them feel as if they are their own separate and unique consciousness from each other? In other words, why can’t organism A perceive itself through the subjective point of view of organism B given that their consciousness is essentially the same thing, just expressed differently?

This is due to the “straight line illusion.” This is the illusion that one is living (i.e. experiencing, perceiving) as the same subjective consciousness, the same point of view, from moment to moment, in succession, as a seemingly straight line of experience from birth until death. We experience this straight line illusion due to the material origin of our brains. It is because our material brain can only record and recall the memories and experiences that it’s own particular material body has undergone. My brain cannot attain the memories and experiences your brain/body undergoes, and your brain can’t attain the memories and experiences that my brain/body undergoes. This information cannot be shared between brains.

This leads me to my point. That we are all the same perceiver, just undergoing a different scenario. We are all the same experiencer, undergoing a slightly unique experience of life from the next brain. But all of these brains seem to tell themselves that they are undergoing their own completely separate experience (consciousness, perceiver) when in fact they are sharing the same experience (consciousness, perceiver).

But when a brain tries to grasp this, it can only bring up the past saved memories and experiences that it’s particular self has undergone, creating the illusion that it has been perceiving as its particular self and only its particular self thus far. The flawed material origin of what makes up all of the various vessels perceiver inhabits is what creates this illusion from each perspective that one’s mind is its own unique entity of consciousness (that is, a separate subjective and conscious point of view).

In one moment, “we” are simultaneously experiencing and perceiving from every single point of view that exists in that particular moment. There is no “you” and “I.” “I” am “you” and “you” are “me.” And we are all each other. Just wearing a slightly different costume. Just inhabiting a slightly different brain, with slightly different personality traits and tastes. We are each merely one representation of what we are all taking a part of and sharing, the perceiver.

2

Or in other words, the self is an illusion.

There are easier ways to make the argument though…

3

That is a misuse of the language. It is conflating the definitive article with an instance of the definition, “equivocation”.
The fact that there is only one object possessing the property, does not make the object equivalent to the property.

Consciousness is a property, not an object.

A perceiver is not perception (nor even “a perception”).

4

Yes this is a fine example of when language can make things very tricky while expressing ideas. This would be a misuse of language in a sense of diction, where organism A is an object and perceiver is a property contained within that object. In that sense, organism A does not equal perceiver.

What I set to do here was convey the equality of the two. My reason for doing so is because perceiver (that is, consciousness/subjectivity/awareness/perception) is a fundamental property of what we would consider being “alive” as an experience. I applied the word perceiver to the embodiment of those four words, as a whole collective property comprised of those four sub-properties (merely more specific versions of the same idea I am trying to express). Since organism A would be “alive” (conscious, subjective, perceiving, aware), and would be existing as the only conscious/subjective/perceiving/aware entity (the only form perceiver is taking on), what I am calling perceiver is idealistically equivalent to organism A. This is because every description, every form, every aspect of perceiver is taking place as organism A. (By the way let’s be clear here, I do not speak about organism A’s material body when I say organism A = perceiver, but I am speaking about organism A’s subjective existence as a conscious experience).

5

PQ, does a perceiver recognize her/himself as a perceiver when s/he is alone? Or does it take a second perceiver to recognize perception in both?

6

That would be “perceiving” (perception in action) as a fundamental property.

7

Having the ability to recognize oneself as perceiver does not recquire the recognition of another brain. You are perceiving, therefore you are an expression of perceiver.

8

Sure, that’s another great way of saying it. I’ll use that.

9

But how does perceiver A experience perception without another mind to ding off of. IOW, is mere perception important or is what’s perceived important? Is there a problem with the word “perceive?”–if there is a problem…

I am a perceiver–I “see” and experience ‘things’ in the world and in myself. Without another perceiver’s perceptions, how am I to decide whether or not my perceptions are ‘real’ or nothing more than what I, myself and on my own, see and experience? Or is the broad generalization of what is ‘reality’ more important than what I perceive?–to me…

10

Somewhat difficult to comprehend; I imagine that you’re asking if perception in brain A could exist without there being another brain B to perceive the existence of perception going on within brain A? If so, it would be only mere perception that matters. So perceiver A (existing by itself) would be perceiving the existence of its own perception (cogito ergo sum) eliminating the need for there to be another perceiver for perception within perceiver A to exist. The “things” you “see” and experience need not the recognition of another perception to hold authenticity, they only need the recognition of your perception to hold authenticity as existent. I hope I’m hitting the points you ask for, but its still hard for me to tell what exactly is being asked.

11

Sorry, I thought I was being clear. I’m trying to understand your definition of perceivoer–someone who becomes “aware” of what s/he knows because of what’s seen or experienced. (By the way, I’m a lousy philosopher because I’m always trying to pin down people’s definitions.) Descartes, after a great deal of thought (not in an oven), came to the conclusion that he existed because he was capable of thinking. He then spent a great deal of time trying to ‘prove’ thought’–existence–using the science he knew at the time–(which was often erroneous.) He ‘invented’ functions for the pineal gland that had been shown to be ‘wrong’ centuries before hand.

Beyond that, ‘perception’ changes. Using one example, you can see a red barn in the distance. As you get closer, that perception becomes larger. Where it was small at a distance (as perceived), the closer you get, the larger it becomes.

Without a frame of reference–another perceiver–how do you know if what you’ve seen is what’s “really” there?

12

If you don’t object, I’d like to try again. In your OP, you said:

I have consciousness and awareness. My subjectivity depends on my interpretation of what I remember of what I’ve experienced or perceived. Should you use a word to define the same word? The same thing happens when you use “perception in general” to define a perceiver.

So let’s examine my dog as a perceiver. He has consciousness and awareness. We know he has memory, but we don’t know if he has subjectivity. We know he has a brain, but we don’t know how he uses that brain to process the data he observes. That makes him a non-perceiver, according to your definition. If I try your definition against other ‘its’, the same situation applies–until we come down to a perceiver is, and can only be, human.

If that’s so, how can one perceiver know s/he is a perceiver until and unless s/he meets another perceiver?

13

Okay, I understand what you’re saying. This is taking the conversation for more of a turn to epistemology. In vaguer terms, you’re arguing that we can’t know other people/brains are actually perceiving (zombie argument). Which you’re right, we can’t. With what you brought up, your question cannot be answered because you could never know if you’re actually meeting another perceiving entity. The only expression of perceiver that you can know exists is your own. But if this were the case, my above argument would hold no meaning due to the absence of there even being such a thing as subjective multiple points of view going on at the same time. Therefore the presumption that what you perceive as other conscious perceiving entities actually exist as real subjective points of view must be made, a rather easy one to make. I don’t want to call your question off-topic, but I’ve been mistaking your replies as refutes this whole time.