[Rushy]

And what do you use to view those instruments in the first place? I'll give you a hint: it's not an instrument.

... at this point you seem to not actually be reading what I'm writing down.

Which was;

"You need instruments which translate the presence or absence of such things into visual or auditory displays in order that you can function with them."

Haven't I just told you, by stating "visual or auditory display" what you use to view/listen to the instrument with? You did read that bit, didn't you?

Do I really need to spell out that you use one of your senses to view an instrument, an instrument which renders the presence of something you cannot see or hear into a form in which you can?

BTW, the "first place" is simply the presence of the phenomenon that you can't see or hear. Viewing the instrument is in second or subsequent place to that.....

The discussion was merely about whether or not senses are trustworthy, you seem to have forgotten that somewhere along the line. I said senses are trustworthy, because they are the one and only thing you can perceive reality with. Then, an army of what I can only assume is psychics started telling me that senses are not trustworthy. If you believe senses are trustworthy, then you should be helping me tell these others that this is so, not arguing with me about using instruments or something.

I believe the point attempting to be made that you are either ignoring or not grasping, is that trustworthiness of senses is not binary. It's not a two option question of "Yes senses are always trustworthy" or "No senses are never trustworthy" but a murky "Senses cannot be trusted in all cases about all things" as Zeteticism appears to promote that only the first binary option is true. I use 'appears' here, because that is the case originally created for Zeteticism in this thread, one which you have never disagreed with as best I can tell.

I just got done telling another fellow that senses are not binary, so it seems like we're both arguing for the same point here.

[Curiosity File]

Hi New here first post.
Visual senses are easily fooled.
keeping it in perspective and simple.
Example
There's a place we used to call "Gravity hill"
We'd park there, put the car in neutral, let the brake off and the car would appear to slowly roll up hill.
On several occasions we would get out and walk along side the vehicle and look at many different angles. No matter how we looked at it it always appeared to roll up hill.
Visual senses easily and completely fooled with slight contour of the surrounding land.
We even considered some kind of magnetic forces.
Did the same with plastic toy cars.
Then there's the good old moon. Appears a different size depending on where it is in the sky. 
There's a ride at Universal Studios that you pull inside a tunnel and they close it off so you have no perspective of out side. They then begin to spin the tunnel around you but within a matter of seconds you feel like you are the one falling over.
Flying is another perspective that can easily fool your senses. Without feeling the wind or seeing things moving past you you have no clue how fast you are actually moving. In fact you feel like you are moving very slow when in fact you are moving very fast.
These are some simple things that the average Joe can understand.
The old 3D glasses at the movie theater.
Video headset games fool your visual and audio senses.
The list goes on and on. 
     

[Curiosity File]

I'd like to add that a pilot in flight, at times, will rely totally on instruments because his natural senses aren't receiving the necessary input to make judgement and adjustments, in the dark for example.
There was arguing here that you were still using your senses by using installment. Not one in the same. You might still be using your eyes to see the instruments and gauges but is not the same. You are not using you eyes to stimulate your physical senses when you look at gauges. You are reading the gauges so you can make physical adjustments and/or decisions that you would not otherwise be able to determine from your failed physical senses. Big difference.   

[AATW]

There are two things to consider. The first is what you’re saying, it is easy for our senses to be fooled. But the second and I’d say more important point is that the accuracy of our senses is limited. I cannot see bacteria, that does not mean they don’t exist. I can’t hear dog whistles, that does not mean they don’t make a sound. I can’t perceive these things with my senses alone but with the right equipment I could detect them. We have discovered a lot more about how things work since we invented the instruments which can enhance our senses to detect things we can’t perceive with our senses alone.

The horizon dips below eye level at altitude. Several experiments have been outlined on here which clearly demonstrate that. But the angle of horizon dip is very small, less than 2 degrees at normal altitudes. The dip cannot be perceived but it CAN be measured. Our senses alone are not sufficient to determine the nature of reality.

[timterroo]

There is an neat experiment that anyone can do in their livingroom. It demonstrates how easy it is for your brain to misinterpret reality.

What you need:

sunglasses lens
string
coin or small object to tie onto the string

Tie a small object such as a coin onto a string, and using a single lens from sunglasses, cover one of your eyes (only one). Now swing the pendulum from side to side in front of you. It's easier if you have someone else swing it while you watch.

You will notice the pendulum swinging circles, not merely side to side. Why is this?

Light slows down as it passes through a lens, so by the time it hits your eye, it is milliseconds slower than the light that hits your other eye. In order for your brain to interpret this mixed signal, you perceive the pendulum moving in a circles even though it is really moving side to side.

This demonstrates that your brain will create perception even in spite of reality.

P.S. - In light of this experiment, perhaps we shouldn't be talking about the "reliability of senses"... but rather we should be talking about the "reliability of perception"?

[iamcpc]

"you can never 'not trust' your own reality".... this is completely wrong and utterly naive of you to say, or think. I hope for your sake that you never have to deal with any serious mental diseases, alzheimer's, dimensia, prosopognasia.

You can easily distrust your own reality. Many times it's healthy to do so. I do almost every single day.

I'm colorblind. If my wife sends me to the store to get a green box of rice and I see a green box of rice my own reality says that this box of rice is green. I come home to my wife and she says I have brought home a yellow or orange box of rice.

Because of this I have to, on a regular basis, never trust my own reality. When it comes to colors I have to trust the reality of everyone else.


In my reality the water makes the arrows change directions. Lucky for me I am able to distrust my reality and say that arrows don't change directions and there must be something else going on. Maybe refraction?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G303o8pJzls

[timterroo]

"you can never 'not trust' your own reality".... this is completely wrong and utterly naive of you to say, or think. I hope for your sake that you never have to deal with any serious mental diseases, alzheimer's, dimensia, prosopognasia.

You can easily distrust your own reality. Many times it's healthy to do so. I do almost every single day.

I'm colorblind. If my wife sends me to the store to get a green box of rice and I see a green box of rice my own reality says that this box of rice is green. I come home to my wife and she says I have brought home a yellow or orange box of rice.

Because of this I have to, on a regular basis, never trust my own reality. When it comes to colors I have to trust the reality of everyone else.


In my reality the water makes the arrows change directions. Lucky for me I am able to distrust my reality and say that arrows don't change directions and there must be something else going on. Maybe refraction?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G303o8pJzls

I think you misunderstood my post. I was quoting rushy, (I think) who said "you can never 'not trust' your own reality"...

My response to that quote: "...this is completely wrong and utterly naive of you to say, or think. I hope for your sake that you never have to deal with any serious mental diseases, alzheimer's, dimensia, prosopognasia."