Is sight more accurate than perception?Can either, neither, or both be deceiving?

Answer 1

Technically speaking, all “seeing” (be it vision, sight, perception, etc. - accurate or otherwise) is ultimately done by the brain; a process that doesn’t always require visual (i.e. photonic based) data processing either. The visually impaired, for instance, can use their senses of touch and hearing to form a mental image of an object, a person’s face, an intruder’s walk, etc. Call it a bioelectric mediated event, dominated mostly by electrons. So, while vision / sight might require photon-based image generation and processing, perception maybe attained without the aid of any photonic type input at all. However, when you stipulate a degree of “accuracy” then you are in effect asking for a comparative judgment call – an altogether higher-level lateral thinking based on a “comprehension” of the underlying “truth”, if you will. In other words, not just making sense of what the brain sees, but deciding on its degree of truthful attributes held in the mirror of a qualified frame of reference (e.g. your memory bank of belief system). In a first approximation, one is tempted to say that perception requires a higher degree of comprehension than sight and hence is a more accurate image of a situation at hand. But in reality, that’s NOT always the case. Simple / instinctive reactions based on split-second visual cues / stimuli (traffic cases, for instance) may not require much of a perception of the event / phenomena at all, whereas in other situations adequate perception maybe a priori condition for a proper reaction. In all, just as in poker, you ought to know when to hold’em, when to fold’em, and when to walk away. In short, both sight and perception, without instinct, intuition, estimation, analysis, creativity, compassion, and comprehension mean very little, INDEED.

Answer 2

Sight is not more accurate than perception and both can be deceiving.

If you brought 10 people into an art gallery and had them look at a paintng, you would get 10 different descriptions, none of them correct and none of them incorrect.

Our perceptions are born from our catalog of experiences and only we have the unique silent vocabulary of memroy. Thus, we may see a sunflower and I may think of Van Gogh, but you may think of Kansas. Any further description of that sunflower will have a trajectory that began with our personal association and memory of the object viewed and end at an emotion that was informed by the path our "thoughts" took while describing the object.

This does not give us any information about what the painter was thinking when it was painted.

Our brain has the ability to "fill in" things in our field of vision that our eyes can' actually see. The brain runs a "similar too" type of program and just like computer imaging, it fills in the blind spots so we see a "whole" picture, that is not really whole when it hits the back of our eye. So in that, sight is ALWAYS deceiving.

Answer 3

Sight and perception can both be deceiving in my opinion. "you should belive some of what you see none of what you hear" Your perceptions are based on your experiences, you present knowledge. Therefore, it is only what you know at the time that gives you your ideas. Since we are learning and growing everyday, i believe that both can be deceiving, however, if you stay opened minded you always have the avability to gain more knowledge, and understanding and look at things some others perceptives. I hope this was helpful.

Answer 4

firstly, both can be deceiving. i don't think it is possible to say that neither sight nor perception are infallible. drunkenness, hallucinations, anger, stress, disease, age etc etc there are so many ways in which our sense of judgement changes.

secondly i don't think sight and perception can be seperated in such a way as to say one is more accurate than the other. perception is a mental process which can involve sight, or not, so they are not seperable. sight without perception would mean nothing because the image projected onto the back of the retina would mean nothing to us. without the brain's analysis of what the image meant it would be incredibly confusing for us.. we need a context in which to analyse something.

really...
i think looking at some optical illusions would answer your question far better than i can.

Answer 5

It depends what you mean by ... (to quote the famous philosopher C.E.M. Joad) by let's have a go:

Sight is only one sense. Perception involves *all* the senses plus, one could argue (I would) the ability to infer patterns, form and test hypotheses, from what your senses have told you over a lifetime of experience. Perception is therefore much wider in its scope.

I would think that it therefore follows that the wider ability - perception - is more vulnerable to inaccuracy *and* offers more potential for accuracy than the narrower ability, i.e. sight.

Also, one's experience of any phenomenon inevitably involves a degree of comparing it against one's prior experience - I'm trying to point to the difficulty one runs into when asking whether one's perceptions are objective or subjective. So a further point to be considered is the flexibility of one's cognitive structure: how easily one can accomodate new ideas or information, especially if they conflict with existing strongly-held values.

There you go. That ought to be enough for an essay or several books.

Answer 6

I think that it depends on your point of veiw.

From my point of view, I think that sight is more perception that accuracy, because it's all based on your (literal) point of view. Looking at something sideways can make it seem flat, but I you look at it from another angle, you'll find that it's made up of thick, complicated material.

Sight is decieving, but perception is more so because everyone has a different perception

Answer 7

both can be deceiving. the best is to experience it yourself... most of us can get wrong impressions by just looking or perceive negatively about something or someone. get an understanding of it, you'll benefit more than just looking.