What is a question?

in #philosophy8 years ago (edited)

In my recent post "What questions are worth asking?" I made some implicit assumptions, which I would like to clarify here, because as always with these things, the length got out of control..

These are my personal opinions. I don't claim them to be true, they are just the best ones I currently have, and I will be happy, if you challenge them and I encourage you to do so, because that's the best way how to learn.

Our perception of reality is subjective

  • it naturally follows from the fact that we observe only a fraction of the whole reality, thus the rest must be inferred/reconstructed/imagined, if we need it. Also our senses are noisy, which means we are sampling the reality, which results in our subjective perception of it. We can only guess, what the true state of the world really is.

What is meaning?

  • reality can be described by a graph of objects and their relations. For example spatial relations - the cup is on the table, the table is to the left from the window (in some given coordinate system); or temporal relations - I cleaned my hands before the meal and washed the dishes afterwards.
  • here the objects correspond directly to specific parts of the world
  • the graph is not the reality, it just represents it. It is a description of the reality. The description is useful, because it allows us to store parts of the reality in our memory and because we can share those parts with other people.
  • but this graph is able to represent also abstract objects and relations. These are the things like love, fear, knowledge, right/wrong, better/worse, rules, liberty, etc., things that can't be directly mapped 1:1 to reality. They can never be sensed and their meaning is defined only by their relations to other concepts.
  • so I would define meaning of a concept as it's relation to other concepts in the graph of our representation of reality. Some concepts are grounded, because they can be mapped to the reality, while others are almost freely floating in the space of our representation of the world, only loosely constrained by other concepts.
  • from this it naturally follows that the meaning is always subjective, because it is based on the representation of the world, which is subjective, because our perception is subjective, because it's partial and noisy.

What is a question?

  • question is an action. In it's core it's an action as any other - you query the reality (ask a question / take a look / measure temperature / ...) and observe the response (hear the answer / observe a scene / read out the thermometer / ...). Questions are specific in that the query is usually aimed at particular parts of the world - people (but not always)
  • actions are represented in our graph of reality as grounded concepts. When I'm thinking about raising my hand, I know how the world will respond to this action - a specific part of the world, which happens to be my hand, will change it's position relative to the rest of the world. Such knowledge is represented in my memory.
  • thus questions are subjective, because they are (series of) actions, which are concepts in our memory, which are subjective, because they are based on our subjective experience.
  • so what does actually happen, when person A asks another person B a question? Person A generates a sequence of actions based on A's subjective representation of the reality. This sequence of actions is observed by person B, who has a different subjective representation of the reality, and thus tries to map the observed actions to B's own concepts. The result quite often is that B interprets A's actions in a completely different manner than A intended. But if they are both rational (Epistemic rationality), they should converge after a discussion to common interpretation of the other's actions, and thus to mutual understanding.
Sort:  

Here's a definition of "a question" that I came up with a minute ago:
A question is the identification and acnowledgement of a deficiency, shortcoming or inconsistency in ones deductions or knowledge.

Loading...

It's a great start to question these assumptions. For instance, if reality is objective but our perception is subjective, how can our perceptions really be about reality? How can something subjective be about something objective? And on the other hand, how did something subjective arise within something objective?

If we separate between epistemology (what we can know) and ontology (what there ultimately is) we can make the following distinction (from John Searle): conscious perception is ontologically subjective (it is a thing that ultimately exists in a subjective way) but epistemologically objective (we can study it like we study anything else).

I am fascinated by Hintikka's "Interrogative Model of Inquiry,"which goes like you describe of being an active sort of questioning, rather than going straight into analysis. It fits beautifully I think with the spirit of Judea Pearl's interventionist theory of causality

Try skimming through these two:

Hintikka, "Is Logic They Key to All Good Reasoning?"
Judea Pearl, "The Art and Science of Cause and Effect"

Reality is objective

Considering the reality I remember a really interesting talk by Peter Russell.

Kind of funny to be talking about the reality considering that we have no idea how it actually looks like :-)

Interesting note perhaps: Immanuel Kant was already talking about the difference between phenomenon and numenon, i.e. the difference between the world as perceived by our senses and the reality as it is. Two completely different things, the latter closed to us. He was quite good considering that he arrived to the same conclusion as quantum physicists today, but a few centuries earlier and without any experiments.

Thought of Russell Peters for a second there.

Edit : Has anyone read The Last Question ?

perception is relative.
and so - cannot be valid universally.
trio of perception is subject-relation-object.
when trio dissapears, pure awareness remains.
(apperception?)
inquiring into pairs of opposites ends in neutralisation of both.
logic ends in abstraction when considering pairs of opposites.

eg. is there a relation between relation and non-relation?

concepts are just concepts, they are neccesary for communication, but not for experiential understanding.
it starts with thoughtless state.
Video by Prem Nirmal on witnessing thoughts:


I'll start posting Premji teachings in some time. Kashmir Shaivism study also helps. Enjoy :)

I very much appreciate your continued support. You've dropped by a few times now and it's good to know that somebody is appreciating the posts.

I'm sorry I've had to drop a reply via one of your posts but I wasn't sure how else to thank you.


As for the post, your statement about our perceived reality is interesting. We can only guess what the world is really like, but do you believe that in the future using AI paired with AR, we could be able to build a better sense of the reality around us everyday?

Coin Marketplace

STEEM 0.26
TRX 0.11
JST 0.033
BTC 64359.90
ETH 3105.50
USDT 1.00
SBD 3.87