Does knowledge derive from reality or its disparity between conflict? Or even as a denial that they are polar opposites? Does knowledge come from perceptions?
“To be is to be perceived or to perceive”
George Berkeley came up with this, meaning that something only exists, in the particular way that it is seen to exist, when it is being perceived by an observing subject.
This invites wild variations of perception from the norm to be equally real. Hallucinations don’t exist. Drug experiences are not fake experiences. It is obvious that if you are hallucinating, you are perceiving something only you recognize. It is a real experience though. You are actually witnessing the episode. Your eyes capture all the information, but but perception creates transformations.
If you were blind, deaf, mute, and without scent and tactile abilities, would you be able to receive knowledge? It doesn’t seem too possible. But does that mean that perception is the cause of knowledge? Maybe not. The only thing left without the senses is a brain with learning potential. Even if there are instincts embedded in the senseless person, using instinct seems an impossible feat. After all, the five senses themselves are instincts; no empirical knowledge is required before the empirical tools of sight and touch can be used.
This suggests that we learn from others. If a person is to remain alone, they have no external ideas to obtain or to link with their own internal ideas. It would seem that a nexus of perception and inner contemplation of perceptions develop understanding. With only perception, there is no way to record what has elapsed.
Society is just as capable of destroying internal ideas as social deprivation is for inhibiting external ideas. A collective group can downplay ideas important to the individual and suppress perception. Mowgli Syndrome is on one end and Herd Mentality is on the other.