Perception PDF

Perception First, the above text belongs to Alain. This topic is important for both human beings and philosophers; human beings, because we experience perception, we have it, and we need it; while for the philosophers, it is important because they can debate about it: its characteris...

Perception First, the above text belongs to Alain. This topic is important for both human beings and philosophers; human beings, because we experience perception, we have it, and we need it; while for the philosophers, it is important because they can debate about it: its characteristics, definition, causes, and its effects. Many schools debated about this topic, particularly the intellectualists and Gestalt. As a beginning, Man is a multidimensional being, his intellectual operations allow him to define reality in different ways. When a stimulus presents a person with an object or situation from the past, one can then speak of an act of remembering. When the presented object or the situation is considered as future or simply as absent then there is a phenomenon of imagination. Finally, when the stimulus gives him an object present and real, it is then a question of perception. We continue, Perception is the consciousness of the external object immediately present to the sensory organ. So, it is a complex psychic fact that certain philosophers interpret as an act of the mind and others as an immediate datum of sensation. As a result, the question then is how this perceptual synthesis is affected. In addition, this debate was since a long time ago, still remains in our days, and seems to continue in the future. And that leads us to face the following problematic: What is the nature of perception? Would it be a work of reason? Or it reduces itself to sensation? After introducing the topic and stating the problematic it raises, we will explain the text. Indeed, this judgment belongs to the intellectualist current which considers perception essentially the work of understanding. When it comes to explanation, we will explain each paragraph and support it using our acquired knowledge. We will first explain from line 1 to line 4. According to Alain, it's often said that touching an object directly informs us about its characteristics, but this is incorrect. Instead, we interpret sensations to deduce the object’s shape. We will now support our explanation by using our acquired knowledge. Alain concludes on the perception of a cube: “An object is thought and not felt.” In front of a flower, a botanist will perceive much more than a profane. We will then explain from line 5 to line 9. Alain provides the example that observing six black spots on a surface involves a mental process, not just sensory input. By judging the data coming from his senses, Oone gradually believes that their number is six. We will now support our explanation using our knowledge In every perception there are sensations, but there is also a sort of judgement that brings them together into a unity, and makes us recognise them as a complete object. This means that when I perceive, I identify objects (like a table having such and such sensitive qualities) and I complete the synthesis of sensations coming from my different senses. Finally, we will explain the rest of the text. Alain concludes that saying "I perceive a cube" simplifies what happens—I judge it to be a cube. Perception involves memory and experience, showing that perception is a thought process, not purely sensory. We finish our explanation by supporting it using our knowledge. For Alain, perception is a judgement (through mental activity) and anticipation (through imagination) and not just pure sensation. First, for intellectualists to perceive is not only to feel colors, smells, sounds... we must therefore distinguish perception from sensation. Sensation is a conscious impression made on one of our sensory organs, perception would be the sensed interpretation, thus becomes meaningful. Second, the intellectualist theory of perception can be identified by the definition proposed by Lalande: "Perception is the act by which an individual, organizes his present sensations, interprets and supplements them with images and souvenirs." He judges spontaneously an object distinct from him, real and at present known to him'. Perception would then involve a whole mental construction by which the sensations experienced are externalized and interpreted: externalized, when, objects are perceived in space; Interpreted, when, one perceives houses, cars... and not lines and colours. Third, according to Lagneau the perception of an object in space is based intellectual act, for space is a system of abstract relations which could not be felt but judged. Distance is judged by an interpretation of sensitive data: the apparent magnitude of the objects, the perspective; for example, intellectual experience and memory allow us to interpret the reduction of a familiar object (a balloon deflated) at a distance. Fourth, according to Descartes, the sensitive qualities of objects do not give any knowledge of it, for the same object can remain even though these sensible qualities would have disappeared and would have been replaced (e.g., the piece of wax subjected to the heat of the fire). Only understanding can provide this knowledge. This is why perception is not a "vision" but an “inspection of the mind”, a function of understanding. Perception also consists of interpreting sensations by judgments, supplementing them with images, memories and previous knowledge that reflect culture. Sixth, since perception is considered by intellectualists as a set of judgments, the illusions of some will be interpreted as errors of judgment. This is the case, for example, with the phenomenon of "constancy color", despite the variation in sensation according to the intensity of light: "we see the color that we know that objects have," a black slate roof, which becomes light gray in the sun, is always perceived as black. Seventh, similarly, the author who drafts his work to correct it, sees with difficulty the spelling mistakes because he knows before reading, and he projects his knowledge and his memories on the characters read. (The mind focuses on the meaning of the sentence and the eye and the hand focus on the word. Because the mind is stronger we see mistakes in the words.) After explaining the topic, we will discuss it. However, despite the importance of reason in the act of perception, the intellectualist theory encountered several difficulties: First, the intellectualist theory explains perception as a mental function of the adult (the judgments) while it does not explain it in the child. Similarly, this theory which bases its explanation on previous knowledge is not capable of enlightening us on the perception of new objects. After criticizing the topic, we will continue by discussing it with another theory. First, the perception of the object is global: any perception is immediately the perception of a set or of the whole. We do not perceive elements to reconstruct them, but they are given to our senses immediately grouped in a structure, in a gestalt," whose perception determines the meaning. There is no distinction between sensation and perception; form is given to us with matter, intuitively and immediately. They are in inseparable. Second, objects constitute themselves, I open my eyes to a world of objects which are organized according to the law of good form, the simplest and the most coherent, and not on a multiplicity of lines and colors; for example, this sequence of points, dispatched, appears to me as a series of groups of two points:.............. The perception of form is determined by the relationships between the elements and the background. The more distinct and structured the elements are according to their proximity, resemblance, symmetry or contrast, and the more neutral or undifferentiated the background, the more the subject is affected by the good shape of the object. Example: the perception of advertisements posted on the highway is immediate. Third, the perception of space is intuitive, original and innate. Distance would be a gestalt, a natural structure of the perceived in the same way as the form of objects; Although it can be assumed that the accurate evaluation of distances requires some learning. We do not see a small and pale object to conclude that it is far away, but we see it in depth. We do not see the sides of the road diagonally as far as the infinite, to judge of this appearance that the road is moving away. But we see the edges of the road parallel in depth. The best proof is that the child, who still lives by his pure sensations, does not spontaneously draw the sides of the diagonal road. He needs a whole education to learn how to draw, to see, from perspective. Fourth, Gestalt interpretation of perceptual illusions: Perception is not an analytical attitude it is the overall structure of the figure that determines the perceptual illusion: Consider, for example, the illusion of Muller, the two segments S1 and S2 are equal but S2 appears le larger than S1 because the whole of figure S2 is larger than the whole of figure S1. Fifth, there is much to be learned from the Gestalt theory. In perception everything overrides the element; the overall method of reading is a direct application of this theory. It is possible to learn to read by first recognizing the overall structure of complete written words(Gestalt) instead of learning the form of each isolated letter After explaining and discussing the topic we end up to a synthesis: First, all in all, the intellectualist and Gestalt theories have had the merit of showing the role of intelligence and good form in perception. Second, these two theories present several disadvantages since perceiving is not limited to an act of reason, nor to a passive reception of good form. At best these two theories have minimized the role of the perceiving subject and his psychic life in the act of perception. Merleau-Ponty insists on the role of the living subject, of the body as the center in perception. Third, in certain illusions, the privileged values of the moment and the situation of the body also decide the perception of movement (-): by driving regularly on the highway I perceive, at a given moment, that my car seems fixed, and the surrounding trees are mobile. Fourth, perception can only be understood on the basis of the living being, his needs and values. Perception is not an objective knowledge. It is a subjective knowledge necessary and useful to the adaptation of man to his environment. If one seeks objective knowledge, one must go beyond subjectivity and proceed by technical means and rational methods. Imagination First, the above text belongs to Satre. This topic is important for both human beings and philosophers; human beings, because we experience imagination; while for the philosophers, it is important because they can debate about its cause, effects, and definition. Many schools debated about this topic, particularly the empiricists and Sartre.  The human person is a multidimensional being. Through her perception she becomes aware of the present world which surrounds her; through her memory, she becomes aware of what has happened, and through the imagination, she projects herself towards the future by freeing herself from the real world. Imagination is the consciousness of a real or unreal absent object. Imagination expresses in the human being the Power to differentiate itself from the real world, to represent itself, and even to create another. Accordingly, we distinguish classically between the reproductive imagination and the creative imagination. "Imagination,” says Jung, "can manifest itself in all the essential forms of psychic life: thought, feeling, sensation, intuition.” It is situated halfway between reason and affectivity. Our current culture cultivates an ambiguous attitude towards the imagination. On the one hand, it praises and exalts it as a "queen of faculties” (Baudelaire). However, it is suspicious of the seduction of images (cinema, television, devices of immersion in "virtual" reality) that could lead us into a fictitious world. This debate was since a long time ago, remains in our days, and seems to continue in the future. And that leads us to face the following problematic What is the nature of imagination? What is the nature of imagination? Is it an act of consciousness which posits the object as nothingness? Is it not rather a reproduction of an image previously perceived? After introducing the topic and stating the problematic we will explain the text and topic. Indeed, this judgement belongs to Sartre and the theory is for phenomenology whose main idea is that imagination is related to reason and consciousness. its main philosophers are Alain, Husserl, and Sartre. When it comes to explanation, we will explain each paragraph and support it using our acquired knowledge. We will first explain from line 1 to line 6. According to Sartre, when one perceives a chair, this does not mean that it exists in his consciousness, for an image of a chair can never be a chair. We will then support our explanation using our acquired knowledge. Sartre noted that knowledge is translated into general and abstract ideas, whereas imagination aims at the absent object from the present object, a concrete symbol which Sartre names Analogue. We will now explain from line 6 to line 14. Sartre then reinforces hat whether perceived or imagined, the object is always out of consciousness. In other words, consciousness relates to the object in two different ways: individuality and corporeality.  We will support using our knowledge. Sartre says that imagination aims at the absent object by passing through the Analogue and by surpassing it. For Example, the doll is not for the girl a plastic figure but a baby. We will finally explain the rest of the remaining text. Essentially, the image can thus only relate to the consciousness of the object; Basically, there’s a certain means of appearance of the object to the consciousness. We finish our explanation by supporting it using our knowledge. Sartre notes that to imagine an object is to simply think of it as not being here, to position the object as nothingness. The starting point of Sartre is found both in the works of Alain and Husserl. For Alain, the mental image in the empiricist sense does not exist. It is an illusion of image, and the imagination is reduced to knowledge and movements. One of his friends, who pretends to imagine the Pantheon perfectly, was incapable of counting his columns. He thought he saw in imagination, said Alain, but he saw 5 nothing at all. The only concrete reality of the imagination would be in the movements of the body I realize. For example, I see myself passing the street of the school, to my left is a hospital, and to my right is a library. I do not see any of that. For Husserl, consciousness is not a repository of images: there is nothing in consciousness. Consciousness is an act, the act of aiming for something external to itself. Imagination would be an attitude of consciousness. My perception of this pencil is a way of pointing at the object; but when I imagine the pencil, one should not believe that my consciousness is inhabited by an image of the pencil. To imagine is to still point at the pencil but in a different way. From these two points of view, Sartre proceeds to explain imagination as an original and new attitude of consciousness. No matter how lively and vivid an image is felt, its object is still not present. The girl plays with the doll and imagines it as a baby. The lover imagines his beloved absent from a photo or a song. There is no real imagination except when the analogue is not a present object when it ceases to present itself as a starting point. I do not want to hear any sound instruments but I want to listen to the symphony. After explaining the theory of Sartre, we move on to discuss this thesis. Firstly, Sartre’s thesis has failed to highlight the role of unconscious affectivity, the projection of emotions, fears, and tendencies in the imagination. Secondly, Sartre has emphasized on the nature of the imagination by bringing it back to the consciousness which aims at an absent object, but he has not explained to us the creative imagination in science, and how man proceeds in his scientific inventions. First, according to empiricists, imagination is the mental reproduction of a previously perceived sensitive object. The mental image is a residue of perception and a reflection of the object that persists in our consciousness. Second, the mental image has as its material support a trace of the perception engraved in the Cerebral substance and preserved as a photograph in an album. Third, some empiricist consider that the mind is a place populated with images. Fourth, hume distinguishes between impressions, which are perceptions of the external world, and ideas which are weak images of impressions in thought. If we close our eyes, we can imagine the objects that surround us and which we perceive just now: we represent the class, the desks, and the sheet on which we write... These images are only weakened reproductions of our sensations in their absence. Fifth, the empiricists distinguish between two kinds of imagination: the reproductive imagination and the creative imagination. The first is the representation of an absent object through mental images. The second is the creative imagination of the inventor or the painter, who would be reduced to the reproductive imagination. It is a new synthesis of images already perceived or known. The image of the mermaid would be an unexpected combination of the image of a woman and that of a fish. From this point on, the empiricists conclude that the distinction between the imagined image and the perceived image is made by the difference in intensity and sharpness: the image imagined is less clear than the perception. Consequently, the confusion of the two images is possible, as in the dream, in certain pathological states, and even in certain common situations. After explaining and discussing the topic we end up to a synthesis: All in all, the empiricist theory and that of Sartre had the merit of explaining the nature of the imagination, each from its point of view. But the wrong of empiricists is to bring creative imagination back to perception, whereas Sartre's wrong is to bring the whole imagination back to an activity of consciousness. While imagination in reality is the result of the projection of my conscious and unconscious desires. Thus imagination precedes objective knowledge. Is this to say. however, that all imagination is a lie. as Pascal wished it to be "a mistress of error and falseness"? Bachelard distinguishes between the nocturnal imagination which takes us away from the real (that of dreams and delusions), and the daytime imagination, that of the scientist who constructs a hypothesis. It is this imagination that can be the creative imagination per excellence. Thus, reason and imagination find themselves reconciled to furnish us with inventions necessary for the evolution of all mankind.