Mysteries of the Brain

[Radrook]

That our experience of reality is subjective is not news...

I never claimed that it is news nor am I stupidly striving to make it seem as news.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I never claimed that it is news nor am I stupidly striving to make it seem as news.

Lol! No, I meant it's 'old news', in the sense that it's obvious to anyone who's ever given it a moment's thought.

 

[Radrook]

Lol! No, I meant it's 'old news', in the sense that it's obvious to anyone who's ever given it a moment's thought.

That's the crux of the matter right there. Most people don't give the reality perceived via the senses a moment's thought. True, the French philosopher Descartes was impelled to invent an experiment whereby he systematically questioned all that was routinely and unquestioningly considered real in order to determine if indeed the conclusion is justified. Humes, an English philosopher, questioned the reality of the exterior world perceived via sense impressions. But most people who are intellectually unsophisticated, which is the majority of mankind, simply accept things as they seem to appear via the senses. So from their standpoint a discussion which questions their basic assumption might indeed prove a bit illuminating and surprising.

In any case the discussion has deviated from the thread topic to metaphysics.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That's the crux of the matter right there. Most people don't give the reality perceived via the senses a moment's thought

That is false.

It's the entire reason why we actually go out of our way to build tools that can "measure" phenomena of reality a LOT more accurately then our senses can.

Because we KNOW that our senses aren't really all that reliable, nore accurate.

But most people who are intellectually unsophisticated, which is the majority of mankind, simply accept things as they seem to appear via the senses.

Because they have no other choice. You can be aware of the systematic brain failures and shortcommings of your senses all you like... but in the end, you'll still depend on them to assess the risk of crossing the street.

 

[Radrook]

That is false.

It's the entire reason why we actually go out of our way to build tools that can "measure" phenomena of reality a LOT more accurately then our senses can.

Because we KNOW that our senses aren't really all that reliable, nore accurate.




Because they have no other choice. You can be aware of the systematic brain failures and shortcommings of your senses all you like... but in the end, you'll still depend on them to assess the risk of crossing the street.

I never claimed that our meager senses are more capable of perceiving without being helped by such things as Xray Telescopes, Infra Red telescopes, Radio Telescopes, Electronic Microscopes, infra sonic detectors, hypersonic amplifiers, and other such devices. Only a driveling idiot would make such an outlandish claim.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I never claimed that our meager senses are more capable of perceiving without being helped by such things as Xray Telescopes, Infra Red telescopes, Radio Telescopes, Electronic Microscopes, infra sonic detectors, hypersonic amplifiers, and other such devices. Only a driveling idiot would make such an outlandish claim.

It seemed to be what you were implying though.

Since most people use tools to do measurements for them, I'ld say that most people are very aware that what they perceive with just their senses, isn't necessarily reliable.

 

[Radrook]

It seemed to be what you were implying though.

Since most people use tools to do measurements for them, I'ld say that most people are very aware that what they perceive with just their senses, isn't necessarily reliable.

I never claimed that the senses are 100% reliable. That is also an outlandish claim that only an idiot would make. In fact, I said just the opposite-that what we are perceiving need not be what is actually out there and that reality, [NOT ULTIMATE REALITY] is subjective. Please try not to distort what I am saying.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I never claimed that the senses are 100% reliable. That is also an outlandish claim that only an idiot would make. In fact, I said just the opposite-that what we are perceiving need not be what is actually out there and that reality, [NOT ULTIMATE REALITY] is subjective. Please try not to distort what I am saying.

I never claimed that you said that, nore do I see how I distorted what you said.

You said: Most people don't give the reality perceived via the senses a moment's thought

That's what I was responding to.
I don't feel like that is a true statement when put in such generalised terms.
In my experience, most people understand the problems with perception.

 

[Radrook]

I never claimed that you said that, nore do I see how I distorted what you said.

You said: Most people don't give the reality perceived via the senses a moment's thought

That's what I was responding to.
I don't feel like that is a true statement when put in such generalised terms.
In my experience, most people understand the problems with perception.

Well, I guess we differ in how we view the common folk based on our experience. You see,

I never encountered anyone who displayed one iota of concern about whether what he was perceiving is real or not until I was 28 years old and that fellow only did so because he had taken a philosophy course where the metaphysical had been discussed. Then later it was part of my course in General philosophy where Hume and Descartes and Kant were briefly discussed. But apart from that, all I saw and still see is people taking the reality of the world as perceived via the senses for granted. Which is of course normal and good since it makes successfully living within the parameters of our senses possible as Kant pointed out. So I guess we simply differ in opinions which is of course OK.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well, I guess we differ in how we view the common folk based on our experience. You see,

I never encountered anyone who displayed one iota of concern about whether what he was perceiving is real or not until I was 28 years old and that fellow only did so because he had taken a philosophy course where the metaphysical had been discussed. Then later it was part of my course in General philosophy where Hume and Descartes and Kant were briefly discussed. But apart from that, all I saw and still see is people taking the reality of the world as perceived via the senses for granted. Which is of course normal and good since it makes successfully living within the parameters of our senses possible as Kant pointed out. So I guess we simply differ in opinions which is of course OK.

Ow, you are specifically talking about metaphysical shenannigans...

That's actually kind of worse.

No, I don't question what I perceive based on silly ideas like "perhaps there is some undetectable supernatural thingy that is tricking/confusing me".

Rather, I mean incorrect perception of reality simply because our brain is so very easy to fool.

Like, for example.... this actually being a still image, regardless of your brain thinking otherwise:

 

[Radrook]

Ow, you are specifically talking about metaphysical shenannigans...

That's actually kind of worse.

No, I don't question what I perceive based on silly ideas like "perhaps there is some undetectable supernatural thingy that is tricking/confusing me".

Rather, I mean incorrect perception of reality simply because our brain is so very easy to fool.

Like, for example.... this actually being a still image, regardless of your brain thinking otherwise:

View attachment 189097

Again! I never mentioned the supernatural. Metaphysics is a study of the nature of reality. How the heck do you suddenly inject the supernatural into it?

Metaphysics

is a branch of philosophy investigating the fundamental nature of being and the world that encompasses it.[1] Metaphysics attempts to answer two basic questions:[2]

1. Ultimately, what is there?
2. What is it like?
3. Metaphysics - Wikipedia

Please refrain from misrepresenting what I am saying.

 

[bhsmte]

I never claimed that it is news nor am I stupidly striving to make it seem as news.

I never claimed that it is news nor am I stupidly striving to make it seem as news.

What do you claim?

 

[Radrook]

What do you claim?

I clearly explained what I meant.

 

[bhsmte]

If you can't understand plain English and need constant repetition then you should not be engaging in discussions.

Does this mean you dont claim anything?

 

[KCfromNC]

If you can't understand plain English and need constant repetition

Objection - assuming facts not in evidence.

 

[Radrook]

Objection - assuming facts not in evidence.

According to your definition of facts and evidence.

 

[KCfromNC]

According to your personal, biased and exceedingly convenient definition of facts and evidence.

No, mostly from your need to resort to personal attacks rather than just quoting an example of your claim actually happening. This post, for example.

 

[Loudmouth]

According to your personal, biased and exceedingly convenient definition of facts and evidence.

You still can't cite a single example of you presenting evidence that was then redefined as non-evidence?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

According to your personal, biased and exceedingly convenient definition of facts and evidence.

So who's definition should we use - yours ?

OK - so what is your definition ?

 

[Radrook]

No, mostly from your need to resort to personal attacks rather than just quoting an example of your claim actually happening. This post, for example.

Examples of my claims are always misunderstood, said to be bogus, misrepresented, or else are said to be incapable of being seen.