PPAP

Jason Peterson and Jordan Olsen
Copyright 12/03/04

This paper is a tribute and reaction to the late great direct realist - Alfred Ayer. He is the inspiration, the “wind beneath our wings” if you will, for our new theory, and we would like to say, “Thanks for being so…” Well, if you read his account on direct realism you would know which words to use.

Precognitive, Preemptive, Asserted Perception
A take on direct realism

Theological View (T.V.)

The theological view of the Precognitive, Preemptive, Asserted Perception (hereafter cited as P.P.A.P.) theory relies upon the direct realist view: everything is perceivable and is in the exact same state as it is when we perceive it. The major difference being that God is in control of the majority of our perceptions in accordance with space-time.

The precognitive aspect of this theory is that God, being omnipotent and omniscient, knows precisely where and in what state objects will be at the exact time that we would sense them from an intermediary source. God asserts the perceptions that we have in a preemptive manner so that we will perceive the object’s current state and not the states of earlier times as our senses may report or as suggested by modern physics.

For example: a star that is near the edge of the known universe. As science tells us, the universe continues to expand even to this day. According to current scientific theory we would see the light from it, but it is not really at that point in space. Because light takes so long to travel to the Earth, and starlight deflection (gravity can bend light) determines its course, we think where the star is is not really its current location. In fact, for all we know, the point of light we typically think of as a star could have come from a celestial body that no longer exists. According to the P.P.A.P. theory, said star is in the same space-time position as our current perceptional ability would lead us to believe. This is on account of God’s preconceiving the star’s location, and preemptively (instantaneously as opposed to intermediately) asserting the perception of that location directly to our perceptual reality. This view of direct realism can be historically backed by the views of Berkeley and Barker.

Berkeley’s view of God’s influence and it’s relation to direct realism is much like our own; Berkeley believed that God had direct influence over our experiences. A paraphrased quote from his idea is found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Berkeley, “my perception of the [object] is an idea that God’s mind has produced in mine,” (a tree is used in this example, we have replaced it with “object” as noted above). This historical work gives support to the belief that there is a direct unbreakable metaphysical connection between a person’s mind and God.

In Barker’s theory of Topical Nesting, he suggests that we directly interact with our surroundings based on what is relevant to our physical niches and the tasks that must be completed at the moment. Furthermore, that any perception that appears to be an intermediary, only appears that way because it is not relevant to our current niches, as we perceive correctly only what we need to in order to function at the best possible level within our current environment. This still mandates that there is a physical world and suggests that intermediaries exist, but only in the form of failed interpretations of irrelevant perceptual information. In this case, one important point that must be made is that reality, at least the current relative portion of it, is indeed a direct reality giving us direct perception.

Like this account, the P.P.A.P. also mandates that there is a physical world, but insists upon the existence of intermediaries in a substantially different way, not necessarily relying on a niche-based theory. Here, in contrast to Barker, reality is still fundamentally indirect, and the intermediaries as constituted by modern physics still exist, but the perceptions that we experience are, for the most part, direct. This is only possible by determining the difference between sensation and perception. Here, we will incorporate some of the concepts derived from our exploration of Reid’s Anti-Sensationalism found at http://humanities.ucsc.edu/NEH/copenhaver.htm. It states that our sensations suggest a perceptual reality, and while we live in this constant suggestive state, we find evidence for the existence of our sensations in the first place. From this, we formulated the following: that sensations are the only reality we are blessed with, and that whatever perceptual experience we interpret from that is an unreal experience and cannot provide us with an accurate view of the physical world. This suggests that any judgments we make about the nature of reality based on our perceptions, be it direct or indirect, is invalid. However, since we do, in this case, have real sensations, and that we only experience sensations at the exact moment of their contact with us, this in itself is evidence for direct realism. While including in the P.P.A.P., this idea that perceptual experience is a completely separate phenomenon from sensation, meanwhile refuting to an extent Reid’s claim that sensationalism is direct, it is possible for us to have God-asserted perceptions while still experiencing the sensations of our physical surroundings, which due to the time lag of intermediaries, can lead to the confusion of the whole of perceptual experience. For Example, let us examine a case where we might watch a man strike a post with a hammer from across a field. Here, we see the hammer make contact before we hear it hit. In this case God is asserting a perception of the man striking the post as it is actually occurring in space-time so that we are not “living in the past” (as proposed by Ayer) by interpreting our sensations through a lagging intermediary. However, if our sensations are of objects that are “proximal” enough as they are in this scenario, in other words if our sensations are constituted of a certain degree of intensity/immediacy/proximity, they can overwhelm God’s asserted perception in us and we can actually interpret some of these sensations into our perceptions, thus presenting inequalities in our perceptual understanding of our surroundings, or more clearly, we may see what God is asserting (the hammer making contact), and hear what our senses have been interpreted to perceive (the sound of the hammer making contact) at different times.


[A sensory override due to activity in the "reactionary zone".]

At this point we feel it necessary to provide definitions to help you decipher this material.

Senses: The five senses (taste, touch, hear, smell, see) are used to receive uninterrupted physical data from a physical world.

Intermediary: The medium from which we sense the effects of physical objects (i.e. reflected light, sound vibration).

Perception: The internal interpretation of the interpreted information gathered by the senses, transmitted and interpreted by the mind – hence giving us a (internal) perceptual world

The Proximal Dilemma: The un-proximal realm is that which is distanced from us (physically) to an extent that any physical reaction we may display to God’s asserted perception, does not interfere with our immediate physical surroundings. If an object comes within the boundary of our proximal realm, in other words, if our physical reactions to God’s asserted perception have the ability to interfere with our immediate physical surroundings, then our senses, whichever sense may be the determiner of the interference, will override that particular sense channel of God’s asserted perception allowing us to avoid the interference. This proximal realm may also be referred to as the reactionary zone.

If you, the reader, are not in the least confused by this, CONGRAT-YOU-LATIONS! We, the authors of this atrocity realize that this is not the easiest thing to understand. In order for even us to make sense of it, we will have to rely on the age-old traditions of flow-charts and analogies.


[The above flow-chart is a pictorial version of everyday perception. It is pretty self-explanatory.]

And now, an analogy to help you better understand what we have said. Because of our current use of computers in everyday life, we will use the computer as an analogy for all that we have said. The coding (senses) of any program, but at this moment my word-processing program, interprets which keys (the intermediaries) I push on the keyboard. The computer (the mind) puts it into interpretable characters to be viewed or displayed, and the resulting image on the monitor is our perceptual reality. Many computer manufacturers offer the service of “Remote Servicing” (God). This allows for customer representatives to access your computer and make changes. While they are doing it, you see the mouse move and programs open and close. This is almost analogous to how God asserts perception, the major difference being God is constantly observing, constantly making changes, but in a much more discreet way, like that of an anti-virus program or a firewall, mind you that said “remote servicing” (God) is NOT a program. As an example of sensory override: the keys (intermediaries) are typically depressed one at a time, but occasionally two or three may be hit at the same time. For the sake of continuing the analogy, the keys pressed are “ctrl,” “alt,” and “delete.” This certain combination of keys causes the coding (senses) within the operating system to make an option box appear on the monitor, therefore causing an inequality within our perceptual understanding of reality.


Mortal Consciousness View (M.C.V.)

The mortal consciousness view of the P.P.A.P. theory is alike in every aspect to the theological view with one difference: opposed to the T.V., the conditioner (not some external all-powerful god) is the asserter. In this scenario, both the conditioner and the mind are parts of, and are governed by, the consciousness. The conditioner has the innate power to assert into our perceptual reality a preconceived perceptual account of the physical world in respect to the current positions of objects in space-time so that we are not, as stated before, “living in the past” by interpreting our sensations through a lagging intermediary, thus resulting in the same effects as the T.V. without the need of a god.