Why Do I Say ‘Image’ When Discussing Vision? Or - Can We Ever See a Chair in its Totality?

Abstract

Can We Ever See a Chair in its Totality? Synopsis of Chapter Submitted Ayad Gharbawi 2023 Submission - Philosophy – Can we ever see a chair in its totality? Key Words: Metaphysics; Vision; Mind; Unity of Vision; Limitations of Man’s Perception. Word Count: 3,036 Words. Dear Sir/Madam; I hope this email finds you well. My book represents a fundamental break from the conventional methodologies of psychology as it aims to be far more precise in describing the attributes of the various ‘bits’ of the mind, such as – memories, vision, scent, sounds, thoughts, dreams and so on, which, in their turn, as stated, are equivalent to some sub-atomic particle quantum laws. Ultimately the book defines with strict specificity what the ‘I’, the ‘Self’ is in light of the multitudes of attributes of the parts that ultimately compose our mind, or our personality, both directly and indirectly [in other words our public and private ‘faces.’] As per this specific manuscript, I am sending you one chapter from my book – Can we ever see the ‘total’ vision of an object, say, a chair in its totality? In this particular article, we note evidence that no observer can ever see the totality of any observed object because of the infinite number of variables that render it impossible for any human being to see the totality of a chair or of any perceived entity. These ‘variables’ are listed in our manuscript – such as being stationary or not; optical accuracy; the angle from which the observer views the chair; the distance from which the observer views the chair; the fact that no human can see the chair from every position and angle and if the observer is not stationary and/or the chair is not stationary, those variables will also change the image of the perceived entity. These variables are infinite in number which leads one to the conclusion that no perceived entity can ever be seen in its entirety given the innumerable and infinite factors that strictly govern and enforce the limitations of the vision of the observing agent in question. That is of course but one mere fraction of the limitations that the observing agent has to accept. Hence there is no totality of vision as per any object. No entity can ever be seen or ‘known’ in its entirety. The ‘unity’ and reality of any vision of any phenomena and/or object is therefore impossible and that is one more cause why defining ‘reality’ is such a difficult if not an impossible task. Thus, when we ask, ‘What does a chair look like?’ the answer is meaningless. And what are the implications? 1. Reality cannot be defined in any wholesome, unified manner. 2. Even though on a day-to-day basis we believe we know our minds and we see our environments, in truth, humans are severely restricted and limited to what they can know and see in their minds and their surroundings. 3. All we know and see as per our minds and our surroundings are changing discrete quantized snippets and slivers of so-called ‘reality’ – and I put the latter in those terms because reality is not and cannot be a unified, whole entity in any way and in any circumstance.

Author's Profile

Analytics

Added to PP
2023-06-27

Downloads
90 (#88,793)

6 months
54 (#78,889)

Historical graph of downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks on external links on PhilPapers.
How can I increase my downloads?