-By conception I mean the substantivation of to conceive which is somewhat problematic because to conceive is nearer to to think. In Germanic languages it is the substantivation of begreifen (substantivised as Begriff, in Dutch begrip) which if translated in English is nothing but to understand.
-Perception is nothing but the substantivation of to perceive. Everybody knows what it means: it is nothing but letting our senses do their job. In science it is (unfortunately) reduced to observation. In other words, it is by definition 'a posteriori'.
-Ontology stands for one of the components of metaphysics as a system.
-In science everybody knows that it is based on perception or observation. However, conception (putting aside the linguistic problem mentioned above) is innate (see the Kantian 'a priori').
-So, my question could be translated as: Is the 'a priori' ontologically earlier than the 'a posteriori'?
-Please check whether my logic is right. Thanks for your answers. Marc.
It seems to me that "conception" in this context refers to developing understanding. So I would say that something must be perceived first before thought processes can be employed to understand it.
The answer to this question is yes and no. As Michael rightly said, in general perception precedes conception; this is the a posteriori position. However, there are cases where conception is not triggered by perception. Talmy* (1999) offers a general cognitive domain he calls 'ception' to account for conscious and unconscious cognitive representations that are the output of both conception and perception; this is the a priori position. This happens in what he calls "fictive motion," where imagining plays a big part even though some imagination has as its fodder previous experience, which necessarily builds on the a posteriori position.
* Bloom, Paul, Mary A. Peterson, Lynn Nadel & Merrill F. Garrett (eds.) (1999). Language and Space. Cambridge, Massachusetts/London, England: The MIT Press (597 pages, ISBN: 9 780262 522663 90000).
Thank you all three, Michael, Wulf, and Zouheir. I 'll take all into my consideration! Marc.
Hi Marc,
If perception precedes conception ("a posteriori position") in general, the perceived cannot result from conceptualization.
This position is contradicted by the modeling, truly programming of the perceived, say manifested Mental, thru structure waves as exposed in Structure wave theory I am about to publish on RG.
So, from the viewpoint of Structure wave theory, "conception" is ontologically earlier than "perception".
Hello Jean,
Please send me the 'Structure wave theory' you are going to publish on RG. Then we can reason further. Thanks anyway! Marc.
Hi Marc,
Structure wave theory will be published progressively on RG.
Conceptualization in the form of structure waves is prior to the actualization of the manifested Mental, thus prior to perception.
The carrier of conceptualization is Consciousness, not bound to the perceived and described structurally in the said theory.
Regards. Jean
To perceive is to take possession of. To conceive is to take in and hold. To take possession of is to take in and hold. To perceive is to conceive.
Who is the perceiving instance?
-If it is man or any other being, that entity is part of the Mental thus conceived by Consciousness from which the Mental derives thru countless releases of structure waves. Then, conception is ontologically prior to perception.
-If it is Consciousness disregarding the Mental, then and only then the perceiving instance is likewise the conceiving one.
So, conceptualization in the form of structure waves remains in any case prior to the actualization of the manifested Mental, thus prior to the perceiving faculty of whatever entity of the (manifested) Mental.
Dear Martin,
Please explain me and other readers why according to you . Thanks for your explanation! Marc.
Marc, if A = B and C = D and B = D, then A = C.
Jean, could it be that perception and conception are two sides of the same coin?
Hi Marc and Martin, nice to meet you!
Conception is ontologically prior to perception inasmuch as perception requires typically the Mental as platform to perceive while conception generates that platform (structurally, as exposed in Structure wave theory to be published on RG) without presupposing it.
This becomes possible thru the circumstance that the actualization of structure waves generating the Mental requires both valid structural information (code) and structural energy (mental work) to bring the (conceptual & manifested) Mental forth wherein perception becomes possible.
Kind regards to all of you! Jean
Dear Martin,
Please translate your in simple terms of perception and conception. E.g. However, my question implies (rather strongly!) that perception is not conception! How can you then analytically verify your unless you can prove that perception=conception?
Thanks for your time! Marc.
Marc, A = to perceive, B = to take possession of, C = to conceive, D = to take in and hold.
Dear Martin,
-Please explain me and other readers in simple syllogism and that one by one what you exactly mean by:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv) .
-Thanks for your time! Marc.
Marc, for the syllogism, see my first answer. i would only repeat myself here.
The meaning of "to perceive" is the same as the meaning of "to conceive." It's just that in some contexts "to perceive" is used, and in others "to conceive."
From Samyutta Nikaya:
"When there is utterly no consciousness, with the cessation of consciousness, would name-and-form be discerned?"
"No, venerable sir."
To discern is to perceive or recognize the difference or distinction. To recognize is to perceive clearly and to cognize again. To cognize is to know, perceive, become conscious of.
"To perceive" is distinct from, but not different from, "to conceive."
Dear Martin,
-For the second time, please explain me and other readers what you exactly mean by: (i) sequentially up to (iv)! Please follow the numbers!!! You need not repeat yourself! I (and maybe other readers) would like to know the way of your own reasoning! (instead of quoting some pundit). Thanks again for your time. Marc.
Marc, why the exclamation marks? (A triple exclamation mark is a mark of frustration.) Alright, Marc, one last try: (i) A = B; (ii) C = D; (iii) B = D; therefore, (iv) A = C.
---
Eyes don't see, ears don't hear, . . . the act of perception is inseparable from the act of conception.
Dear Martin,
Your last try is a repetition of what you have said. It is the same type of syllogism you have used earlier. That is the why of my question. Please explain it so simple that everyone can understand you. Thanks for your explanation! Marc.
In a ham-fisted (coarse-grained) carving of broadly epistemological territory, the traditional empiricist of Locke's or Berkeley's or Hume's inclination, will say that to perceive is to have sensory ideas, and to conceive is to wield a different faculty of the mind than sensation (namely, the intellect); in his famous "tabula rasa" passage, the mind is a blank slate until some sensory inputs populate it, as grist for the mill of other faculties of mind (the intellect, the imagination, the will). // Descartes and Leibniz doubted this, argued against it, and defended a nativist account not unlike that developed by Chomsky much later -- that there are innate contents of mind prior to deliverances of the senses. In my view, the rationalists win, and the empiricism is a flat-footed failure; but it'd take reams and hours to present the history of this story. // Famously (I'd add "and infamously", since it has seemed a botch to me), Kant rejected both of those stories about the front end. But when he said "Concepts without percepts are empty; percepts without concepts are blind," he waived a weak hand in the direction of "percepts first". -- j.a.c.
Thanks Jan for your nice but uneasy answer. I 'll read it with a clear perception and conception. Marc.
Marc, the syllogism is the answer. The syllogism is very simple. It has three parts and one conclusion. What's unclear?
Jan, "concepts without percepts are empty; percepts without concepts are blind" means that perception and conception are mutually dependent: perception and conception are two sides of the same coin; the coin (as any other coin) has always two sides, never just one: neither perception nor conception comes first: they come together at once.
Dear Martin,
The syllogism has three parts and one conclusion, so it has four parts. Do these four parts agree with the sequence of four numbers (i) through (iv) I asked you some days ago? Please answer this 1st question. Thank you! Marc.
Marc, yes. What i wanted to say with the syllogism is that it is possible to find identical meanings of "to perceive" and "to conceive" in (Oxford) English dictionary. It would be helpful if you specify what you mean by "to perceive" and "to conceive." It could be, that other meanings are also identical and the use of "to perceive" and "to conceive" is only context-dependent. Further, if perception depends on conception and vice versa, there cannot be any priority among them: perception cannot be clearly distinguished from conception, neither by definition, nor by priority.
Dear Martin,
Thank you for the answer, yes. Now my 2nd question beginning with number (i) . What do you mean by that? Please explain it to everybody in simple statement(s). Thanks for the explanation! Marc.
Marc, "to perceive" means "to take possession of" (Oxford English Dictionary); "to conceive" means "to take in and hold" (Oxford English Dictionary).
Is A) "conception" prior to "perception" or is B) the opposite valid respectively are C) "conception and perception the same"?
First of all, a serious answer to that essential question requires a scientific and/or philosophical frame (theory) to become able to define "conception" & "perception" inside the theory unambiguously; otherwise, it is hopeless even to try an answer.
-A: In Structure wave theory, the typical case in use is A) wherein "conception" means any defining act labeled as the relief of precise arrays of structure waves thru a defining observer (structural oscillator) whilst "perception" refers to the outcome of the defining act, that is usually an item (class) of the defined level in a level-duo (cf. Number form theory) while the "perceiving" observer sharing that level is linked to his object of perception via stable thus conventional metrics expressed by real or complex numbers.
This statement requires a refinement though: The defining observer can be initiator of the Mental or just share that platform. In the first case, he is unique and then titled Hyper-Oscillator showing as the source of every source-oscillator, all freeing structure waves. However, in both cases "conception is prior to perception" provided perception refers in the second case to the outcome of the newly executed defining act.
-B: In Structure wave theory, "perception comes prior to conception" if and only if the "perceived" level is the (relative) defining level, thus not the level that is to be "conceived" thru a defining act from the current defining level.
-C: In Structure wave theory, "perception and conception are the same" if and only if the result of the defining act is part of the (relative) defining level. An illustration of such (rare) event might be psycho- or telekinesis.
More generally, we can say that "conception" is linked by unstable metrics to the result of the defining act, while "perception" by stable metrics to the actualized concept so that "conception" and "perception" are a priori not the same!
Moreover, "conception" is possible without "perception" (see the Hyper-Oscillator initiating the Mental without presupposing any part of it) whilst "perception" presupposes "conception" in the form of encoded structure waves that are actualized thru structural carriers.
Dear Martin,
I feel obliged to repeat my 2nd question beginning with number (i) . Please explain it with your own words so that everyone can understand your own reasoning. Please use your own words without using any English dictionary, Oxford or non-Oxford. Your own reasoning could be very interresting and everybody has, at least implicitly, the right to know that. Thanks for the explanation in your own words! Marc.
Unstable metrics are to “conception” what stable metrics are to “perception” signifying that the rapport amid “conception” and “perception” actually is Number form theory©.
"Conception" in the context of the defining act of Structure wave theory© linked to the encoding of structure waves is ontologically prior to their actualization via structural carriers anticipating the level to be defined thru unstable metrics fixed amid the relative defining and aimed level whereas "perception" clearly linked to the result of the said actualization occurs at the defined level thru stable metrics set amid the object previously conceived and the "perceiving" observer.
Marc, i have nothing more to say. i don't understand your request. i don't understand what you don't understand about my answer(s) and what is it that you want me to explain. i am done.
Dear Martin,
-I am sorry that yuo are done. My request is nothing but to put your own idea in very simple words so that everybody can understand that idea. We are discussing about ideas, not about phrases (which you can find in dictionaries).
-Please explain me and others re: why you think that .
-Thanks for your idea (rendered in simple words)! Marc.
To ResearchGate: I cannot find the last answer of Martin Klvana. If there is a mistake in question, please send me as yet that answer. Thanks! Marc.
Annex to my claim "conception is ontologically prior to perception":
If the defining say conceiving observer (cf. Structure wave & Number form theory) is likewise the perceiving instance, then two ways of perception are available to him:
a) He perceives from his (relative) defining level ZK[k≠0] what he is about to conceive thru a defining act, so a relief of structure waves, while anticipating the item (class) to be defined thru unstable metrics separating the still virtual level ZK[0] from ZK[k≠0] that requires and legitimates true number form notation.
b) He perceives at the defined level ZK[0] what he has conceived at ZK[k≠0] while stable metrics are spanned amongst him and the item (class) defined after an observer-shift has occurred from ZK[k≠0] to ZK[0].
Dear Jean,
Thank you for the answer. What do you mean exactly by conceiving observer. As far as I know 'observation' is unfortunately a reduction of 'perception'. A conceiving observer would then be interchangeable: conception/perception which doesn't meet my question. But I suppose you have another explanation. Please explain it to me and others. Thanks for the explanation to be given. Marc.
Hi Marc, a conceiving observer is according to Structure wave theory© (1st part has been published recently on RG) a defining observer releasing as a structural oscillator the structure waves that model the perceived. So, conceiving is a creative act producing what is perceived thru reliefs of structure waves at a relative defining level inside a level-duo (cf. Number form theory©, Introduction also published on RG).
The point is that while everything that can be perceived results from releases of structure waves thru conceiving respectively defining observers, the defined level uses not to be the level from which the perceived is conceived that makes it necessary to introduce the level-duo concept requiring mutually unstable metrics based on true number forms (cf. my paper NFT_1: Introduction to Number form theory©, wherein the level-duo notion is explained) to relate the enclosure pair defining the level-duo.
The number form concept actually meets the requirement to discern between a relative defining and the defined level (ex. universe). Every genuine number form reflects that differentiation fusing "conception" and "perception" in one concept without making both equal though according to the mathematical properties of the number form idea. Then, "conception" as a defining act comes as a release of structure waves while remaining ontologically prior to "perception", the latter reflecting classical observation and standard metrics.
Indeed, the number form concept adds the projection of a virtual level that with its actualization thru fitting structural carriers becomes perceivable for observers for whom the unstable metrics expressed by true number forms are converted into stable metrics expressed by conventional numbers, real or complex. From the view of classical observation, the number form characteristics collapse and what remains are the metrics we know from the established sciences proceeding thru description while based on stable metrics.
Thus, the number form concept is said governed by a principle we name number form relativity redefining conception and perception.
The following statements made in the context of my structural theory of CONSCIOUSNESS, i.e. Structure wave theory©, close for my part the debate “Is conception ontologically prior to perception?”:
The conceiving consciousness (i.e. defining observer) establishes number form metrics between himself and the item to be defined (at a virtual level) while the perceiving consciousness (i.e. standard observer) sets up conventional metrics (real or complex numbers) among himself and the observed item considering though that a true real or complex number form is actually not a real or complex number!
If the conceiving observer is likewise the perceiving consciousness regarding the same item (class), then a so-called observer-shift from the relative defining to the defined level must take place (cf. level-duo notion in Number form theory©).
In any case, “conceiving“ is ontologically prior to „perceiving“ inasmuch as true number form metrics precede conventional metrics that are just the limits of the first.
Best regards.
Jean
The thanks I return for the interesting debate. All the best to you, Marc! Jean
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Linguistics
- Philology
- Language
- English