Our perception defines the reality around us. Life is an accumulation of the things we perceive and respond to, from our tastes, smells, hearing and mental interpretations. Alas, what if someone were to tell you that these responses can be unreliable? Consequently, what if our perceptions of such things were falsified, or rather conditioned? Do our behaviors and responses affect these perceptions? Modern science proves that these responses are stimulated by something other than innate neural rhythms, and are rather conditioned — they are influenced by human experience. If our perception is continuously conditioned, we restrict ourselves from the complexities of life.
Ivan Pavlov introduced the concept of classical conditioning in 1897. In essence, the theory aligned human behavior with neural stimuli and responses. According to a series of experiments completed by Pavlov, our responses are manipulated by the presence of certain stimuli. Pavlov illustrated this through experimentation with dogs, and their responses to neutral stimuli. In traditional science, neutral stimuli do not drastically affect human behavior. Nevertheless, the dogs salivated at the mere sound of a bell, even when no food was present. Pavlov used this salivation as an indicator of their responses, which had been conditioned to react to this specific stimulus. Thus, the responses were manipulated by something other than inherent physiology. Rather, they were beguiled by their experience.
Ultimately, the effects of classical conditioning can extend onto human emotions, health, and behavior. Just as the dogs correlated food with the ringing of a bell, we may correlate certain sounds with a similar entity, depending on the experiences we have; the responses of the dogs heightened their experience as well as their emotions. Their positive emotions caused them to rejoice at the sound of the bell, and in their viewpoint, their perceived reality was changed for the better. Thus, the question arises — if classical conditioning influences such crucial components of behavioral responses, can it not influence perception as well?
Perception is defined by our view of reality around us, from visceral or visible standpoints. If perception is affected or altered by human behavior in any way, then yes, it can be influenced. Our perceptions are dictated by our response to various stimuli, and therefore craft the reality around us that our mind wills to perceive. These responses alter the parameters and effects of behavior. During the moment that the bell was rung, Pavlov’s dogs altered their perception of their reality, as their response to the sound caused their behavior to change. Suddenly, they perceived the world around them in a positive light, due to the misconceived presence of food. Alternatively, if they had correlated the bell ringing with an unpleasant concept, their perception would become negative. Their association of the bell with food incriminated the validity of their perception; reality was now unfairly perceived as it was dictated by their behavior and personal views. In this way, there is a key link between behavior and perception.
It may be more drastically claimed that our perceived reality is constantly invalidated at the cause of our own internal conditioning. Take a stray cat approaching two people in the street. The cat proceeds to bunt their head against each person and purrs whilst doing so. One person has had a negative experience with cats, and this experience has conditioned their behavior to perceive the cat as a threat. Alternatively, the other person does not have any similar negative experiences, and inversely appreciates the actions of the cat, identifying it as affectionate. Whilst the second person is indifferent, and possibly pleased, the first person may recoil from the cat, leading them to become frustrated. Due to their projected frustration, they have caused another negative experience for themself. Their conditioned behavior has evoked a chain of responses that have ultimately conditioned their perception of reality in this circumstance as well.
Nevertheless, why should perception matter, if constantly altered? Alas, perception is the foundation of existence that humans abide by. Pavlov highlighted the impact of personal experience to condition behavior to certain stimuli, and as we encounter all such stimuli in our day-to-day lives, this impact can be extended to affect our ultimate perception as well. Without perception, one would not be able to encounter the world whether through the senses or through the mind. One could not eat, drink, sleep, love, smell, or even imagine without perception. This is also the case for human behavior. Thus, the potential link between them is frightening; it infers that the cause of conditioned perception is determined by all humans individually. It makes us question; what if behavior did not influence perception? Would we perceive the world in a better way, that exceeds the intense, all-consuming reality that our behavior burdens upon ourselves? If perception is conditioned, we do not have the power to craft our own reality, we cannot properly indulge in life, for we are restricted to a singular path determined by personal behavior. In the example above with the cat, both people were faulted by their own conditioning which restricted their ultimate experiences during their encounter with the cat. This conditioning caused them to perceive life in a one-dimensional way, rather than experiencing all of its intricacies and complexities relative to the circumstance. One person is restricted to fear, whereas another is restricted to pleasure. Rather than using only one emotion to provoke their behavior, they should seek an overlap of both emotions or associations. The intersection of all potential responses in a given circumstance provides balance, evident in the example proposing an overlap of fear and pleasure, necessary for survival and enjoyment. Conditioning one’s perception is a restriction of life itself. One should discard the mental onslaught of one-sided experience when encountering new things, yet also learn from multiple variations of experiences that may generate different responses.
