FW: "Perception is reality"

[desegnac <desegnac@SWBELL.NET>]

I have an impression that we are under an illusion of "perception," as

discussed. Here is why:



>From the unabridged Webster:



"perception, n [L. perceptio, perceptionis, from percipere to seize.]



1. consciousness, awareness.

2. the awareness of objects or other data through the medium of the senses.

3. the process or faculty of perceiving.

4. the result of this; knowledge, etc. gained by perceiving.

5. insight or intuition, as of an abstract quality."



while



"illusion, n [L. illusio (-nis), a mocking, jeering, from illusus, pp. of

illudere, to mock, play with; ... ]



1. a false idea of conception; a belief or opinion not in accord with the

facts.

2. an unreal, deceptive, or misleading appearance of image.

3. a false perception of what one sees, where one is, etc.; in psychology,

an abnormal illusion is a hallucination.

4. a delicate, gauzy cloth used for veils, etc.; tulle.



Syn. -chimera, deception, delusion, fallacy."



Thus, if we do not, readily, perceive the earth's curvature, we do not

experience a false perception, but an illusion of the earth being flat; that

is, we experience a false conception - I think!



That "all radiation is bad" is, of course, an illusion, that is, a false

perception drawn from ...



What I am trying to say is simply this: in our recent messages, using

"perception" without "false," is an illusion. ;-)))) !





Dusan Radosavljevic, RRPT

Austin, TX

desegnac@swbell.net





-----Original Message-----

From: owner-radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu

[mailto:owner-radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu]On Behalf Of maury

Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 5:16 PM

To: RuthWeiner@AOL.COM

Cc: radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu

Subject: Re: "Perception is reality"



I believe that Ruth and others have set the picture quite accurately. I

believe I understand what Bill means and is

trying to convey by using the "perception is reality"

theme, but it just does not work conceptually as a general

population assertion.



I thought that "realities" are essentially and ultimately

a matter of intersubjective agreement. Perceptions, I

thought, are completely idiosyncratic. Perceptions either

may or may not coincide with reality. Obviously, one's idiosyncratic

perception may or may not be real, but it

seems equally obvious that these constructs are independent

and they may or may not overlap.



It seems to me quite unreal and useless to assert a general proposition

that perception IS reality. This is only

necessarily true or correct for an individual.

Cheers,

Maury Siskel       maury@webtexas.com



___________________

If a cow laughs, does it spit milk out its nose?

=============================================

RuthWeiner@AOL.COM wrote:



> My disagreement with this concept is that it results in misapplication

> of resources, which can have dangerous or even fatal consequences.

>

> Perceptions that have no consequence for anyone except the person

> doing the perceiving are not of concern, to me at least.  Re the "flat

> earth" example: I certainly wouldn't hire a crew member who believed

> the ship would fall off the end of the earth -- not in 2002, anyway --

> and if the individual were a passenger, it would be up to him or her

> to decide whether to try the voyage.  I'd tell that person that we

> have approximately 500 years of evidence to the contrary, and I agree

> with Ted and Kai and others that this irrational belief  shouldn't be

> confirmed.

>

> A more realistic (and "rad-related" ) example is the person who does

> not wish to work with radioactive materials at all because of fear of

> the consequences of any exposure.  That is that person's choice,

> clearly.  One can only present the facts of the situation and allow

> the individual to make up his or her own mind.

>

> However, the "rub" comes when perception results in poor decisions

> that affect more than just the "perceiver."  Promoting laetrile as a

> cancer cure led a number of cancer sufferers to avoid effective

> treatments for too long.  Currently the United States spends a great

> deal of money and resources mitigating the putative effects of

> radioactive materials spills and too little protecting children's

> health (and adult health) from less exotic but far more damaging

> impacts.  Imagined radiophobia can result in avoiding routine dental

> x-rays and other medical applications of ionizing radiation.  There

> are many other examples.

>

> How is such perception best changed?  It seems to me one has to tell

> the truth, as several correspondents have noted, and one has to tell

> it unequivocally.  The earth is not flat, and the ship won't fall off

> the end.  A lifetime of dental x-ray is most likely to result in good

> dental care and healthy teeth and gums and very unlikely to result in

> cancer.  The money currently spent on implementing regulation of

> ionizing radiation would save a lot more lives if it were spent on

> health insurance for the uninsured.

>

> Ruth Weiner, Ph. D.

> ruthweiner@aol.com







************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.

You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/



************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.

You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/