The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: Gaia on August 25, 2018, 02:24:21 PM
-
Hello, I'm new here and I find this whole forum fascinating. I hope my question is something a bit different as I understand you might find answering the same questions over and over a tad tiresome.
I've read quite a few of the debates and one of the things that stood out for me in the arguments given by the flat earth proponents is that they unfailing trust the evidence given out by their senses.
By this I mean that the most compelling evidence for flat earth seem to be the fact it looks flat, it can't be spinning because we can't feel it etc.
What I'm curious about is why you think human senses (which are relatively imprecise and can be fooled by both natural and man made phenomena) and perception (which is inherently limited and biased) are the best me and to draw conclusions of reality?
Hope this is the right place for this question and thank for any answers in advance
-
How exactly are you drawing a conclusion about reality without using your senses? I certainly hope you're not about to tell us you have some kind of direct connection to the universe that doesn't involve perceiving it first.
-
How exactly are you drawing a conclusion about reality without using your senses? I certainly hope you're not about to tell us you have some kind of direct connection to the universe that doesn't involve perceiving it first.
See my similar thread. There are things we can measure with certain instruments which we can’t percieve.
Our senses are limited and can be fooled, they are not sufficient to determine everything about reality.
-
How exactly are you drawing a conclusion about reality without using your senses? I certainly hope you're not about to tell us you have some kind of direct connection to the universe that doesn't involve perceiving it first.
See my similar thread. There are things we can measure with certain instruments which we can’t percieve.
Our senses are limited and can be fooled, they are not sufficient to determine everything about reality.
Yes, AllAroundTheWorld got my point. I certainly don't claim to posses some sort of 6th sense to understand the universe. Sorry I didn't make my meaning clearer.
Of course our senses are the only way we can receive information, however most natural phenomena can be measured and observed with much more precision by different instruments, these findings make much more reliable foundation for understanding analysing these things.
-
How exactly are you drawing a conclusion about reality without using your senses?
By using instruments and devices.
Examples;
My microwave oven looks inactive, even when switched on. Only the light inside and a cooling fan give away that it's in operation. If these were disconnected, my senses (and yours) would, until a hand was placed in there and cooked, tell us that there was nothing there.
The sarcophagus at Chernobyl, to the naked eye, looks harmless, as does any other radioactive source. I would rely on a geiger counter rather than my senses.
The glass of water in front of me looks clean. However, if I really want to know if there's any pathogens or toxins within, I really need the help of a chemist and the tools available to him or her, don't I?
That's three examples of how your senses might let you down. Why should they be trusted specifically in the determination of whether or not the Earth is flat, when they are unreliable in so many other arenas?
-
How exactly are you drawing a conclusion about reality without using your senses? I certainly hope you're not about to tell us you have some kind of direct connection to the universe that doesn't involve perceiving it first.
See my similar thread. There are things we can measure with certain instruments which we can’t percieve.
Our senses are limited and can be fooled, they are not sufficient to determine everything about reality.
How do you propose interpreting those instruments without using your senses? Is there a sixth sense called "instrument viewing" that I'm not privy to?
-
Yes, of course you use your senses to read those instruments but the FE mentality seems to be “the horizon looks flat, ergo the earth is flat” or “the horizon appears to be at eye level regardless of your altitude, therefore the horizon is always at eye level”.
In my thread I have provided several quotes from the Wiki with this kind of reasoning.
-
the FE mentality seems to be “the horizon looks flat, ergo the earth is flat” or “the horizon appears to be at eye level regardless of your altitude, therefore the horizon is always at eye level”.
AATW, lying is always such a bad look for you. You're a reasonably intelligent guy, and yet you choose to leave a bitter taste in people's mouth when you do things like this.
So, let's set you straight once more. The logic is not just that the horizon looking flat means it looks flat. That's just a small bit of evidence, which is not inseparable from a broader context. Your objection to empirical inquiry is that some evidence, on its own, is not conclusive. But, conveniently, none of it exists in a vacuum.
-
The logic is not just that the horizon looking flat means it looks flat. That's just a small bit of evidence
But that ISN'T evidence for a flat earth, or for a globe earth or for a cube earth.
But it is presented as such in several places in your Wiki. Copying from my other thread:
Every man in full command of his senses knows that a level surface is a flat or horizontal one; but astronomers tell us that the true level is the curved surface of a globe!
https://wiki.tfes.org/A_hundred_proofs_the_Earth_is_not_a_globe
(Number 18)
The average man can’t advance a single reason for believing that the world is round. He accepts that theory on blind faith and rejects the evidence of his own senses.
https://wiki.tfes.org/Leo_Ferrari
The evidence for a flat earth is derived from many different facets of science and philosophy. The simplest is by relying on ones own senses to discern the true nature of the world around us. The world looks flat, the bottoms of clouds are flat, the movement of the sun; these are all examples of your senses telling you that we do not live on a spherical heliocentric world. This is using what's called an empirical approach, or an approach that relies on information from your senses
https://wiki.tfes.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions
And this quote which isn't about the flat horizon but is another spurious claim that were we moving we would be able to sense it:
Shall we blindly believe a theory which in the nature of things is so impracticable, and a theory which directly contradicts the evidences of our God-given senses? We feel no motion; we see no motion; and we hear no motion; while our senses favour the reasonable and demonstrable fact that the earth is stationary.
https://wiki.tfes.org/Albert_Smith
This makes as much sense as refusing to believe that an airplane is moving at hundreds of miles an hour because I can only feel a slight vibration. And from your page about horizon dip, or lack thereof:
Have you ever noticed that as you climb a mountain the line of the horizon seems to rise with you?
https://wiki.tfes.org/Horizon_always_at_Eye_Level
Again, the logic here is "the horizon looks like it's at eye level, ergo it is".
So while it may have been harsh to call these things the "FE Mentality" they are both examples of FE reasoning as presented in your own Wiki. And in both cases they are spurious. A flat horizon is NOT evidence for (or against) a flat earth, the horizon looking like it's at eye level doesn't mean it IS at eye level and a close to eye level horizon would also be seen on a globe or flat earth.
TL;DR: Our senses are not sufficient by themselves to determine the shape of the earth.
-
The logic is not just that the horizon looking flat means it looks flat. That's just a small bit of evidence
But that ISN'T evidence for a flat earth, or for a globe earth or for a cube earth.
But it is presented as such in several places in your Wiki. Copying from my other thread:
Every man in full command of his senses knows that a level surface is a flat or horizontal one; but astronomers tell us that the true level is the curved surface of a globe!
https://wiki.tfes.org/A_hundred_proofs_the_Earth_is_not_a_globe
(Number 18)
The average man can’t advance a single reason for believing that the world is round. He accepts that theory on blind faith and rejects the evidence of his own senses.
https://wiki.tfes.org/Leo_Ferrari
The evidence for a flat earth is derived from many different facets of science and philosophy. The simplest is by relying on ones own senses to discern the true nature of the world around us. The world looks flat, the bottoms of clouds are flat, the movement of the sun; these are all examples of your senses telling you that we do not live on a spherical heliocentric world. This is using what's called an empirical approach, or an approach that relies on information from your senses
https://wiki.tfes.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions
And this quote which isn't about the flat horizon but is another spurious claim that were we moving we would be able to sense it:
Shall we blindly believe a theory which in the nature of things is so impracticable, and a theory which directly contradicts the evidences of our God-given senses? We feel no motion; we see no motion; and we hear no motion; while our senses favour the reasonable and demonstrable fact that the earth is stationary.
https://wiki.tfes.org/Albert_Smith
This makes as much sense as refusing to believe that an airplane is moving at hundreds of miles an hour because I can only feel a slight vibration. And from your page about horizon dip, or lack thereof:
Have you ever noticed that as you climb a mountain the line of the horizon seems to rise with you?
https://wiki.tfes.org/Horizon_always_at_Eye_Level
Again, the logic here is "the horizon looks like it's at eye level, ergo it is".
So while it may have been harsh to call these things the "FE Mentality" they are both examples of FE reasoning as presented in your own Wiki. And in both cases they are spurious. A flat horizon is NOT evidence for (or against) a flat earth, the horizon looking like it's at eye level doesn't mean it IS at eye level and a close to eye level horizon would also be seen on a globe or flat earth.
TL;DR: Our senses are not sufficient by themselves to determine the shape of the earth.
AllAroundTheWorld, I present you with a brick wall against which you can bang your head. With this you can use your senses to deduce that you won't get anywhere with this. I feel quite convinced by your argument that we cannot simply rely on just our senses.
-
TL;DR: Our senses are not sufficient by themselves to determine the shape of the earth.
As we already established earlier, there's no other mechanism with which you can perceive the earth. Everything at some point must filter through your senses, therefore your senses alone are the only thing you can use to determine the earth's shape.
-
TL;DR: Our senses are not sufficient by themselves to determine the shape of the earth.
As we already established earlier, there's no other mechanism with which you can perceive the earth. Everything at some point must filter through your senses, therefore your senses alone are the only thing you can use to determine the earth's shape.
Fine, and I don't disagree with that. Of course ultimately our senses are how we perceive anything. But that's not the same as saying that we can build evidence for a flat earth just by looking at stuff. This quote from the Wiki, from the FAQ:
The evidence for a flat earth is derived from many different facets of science and philosophy. The simplest is by relying on ones own senses to discern the true nature of the world around us. The world looks flat, the bottoms of clouds are flat, the movement of the sun; these are all examples of your senses telling you that we do not live on a spherical heliocentric world.
Is stating that us just looking at stuff is evidence. And sometimes it is, but let's take those examples one by one:
The world looks flat - that isn't evidence either for or against a flat earth.
The bottoms of clouds are flat - not even sure that one is true, even if it is I don't know what bearing that would have on the shape of the earth.
The movement of the sun - this one is ironic given that a core FE belief is UA which is used as a substitute for gravity, the claim being that it would be indistinguishable from gravity (true in many ways but the Cavendish experiment is demonstration of gravity as a force). Point being the exact same thing applies here. The sun moving across the sky would look exactly the same if the sun went round a stationary earth or the earth rotates and the sun remains still (relatively, let's not go down that rabbit hole).
None of these things are evidence for or against a flat earth. And the horizon always at eye level page is basically one long "well, it looks like it's at eye level, so it is". Case closed! No controlled experiments are outlined on that page. Yes, if we do a controlled experiment we are using our senses to look at the results but that's not the same as just looking at the horizon, figuring it looks pretty much at eye level and saying that is evidence for it being AT eye level regardless of altitude.
There seems to be an emphasis of what you can perceive rather than what you can measure.
-
How do you propose interpreting those instruments without using your senses? Is there a sixth sense called "instrument viewing" that I'm not privy to?
I look at a VU Meter on a recording device, or a mixing desk, and it tells me if the signal is within an acceptable range. So I'm using my eyes (sight) to judge an audio signal that I can only truly sense with my ears.
Is this the 'sixth sense' to which you refer?
And yes, I would use a geiger counter, and interpret the rapid clicks aurally, or look at a display visually, rather than commit to an excursion through the hot zone, and let my body tell me I was wrong later..... Sixth sense, indeed....
-
I have started a similar thread. Feel free to read my somewhat lengthy explanation of why you cannot always rely on your senses to give you accurate information.
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=10554.0
I whole-heartedly believe that your reality is based on your perception. There's an interesting TED talk about consciousness as a hallucination.
https://www.ted.com/talks/anil_seth_how_your_brain_hallucinates_your_conscious_reality?language=en
In essence, your reality is a controlled hallucination that you are experiencing. Subjective in so many ways.
I understand what rushy is saying that you are 100% dependent on your own 5 senses to make sense out of anything. There is no other way to get input, unless you believe in transcendental forces, reiki, prophetic dreams, and that sort of thing. Which is a whole other topic that I'd be willing to discuss as well if anyone is interested.
The point is, when it comes down to it, you cannot even be 100% sure that you aren't the only conscious being in reality, experiencing some grand dream or vision that one day you will die and wake up from. You can't be 100% sure that others around you aren't just figments of your imagination.
However, you CAN make use of tools and technology to help your senses gain input in different and unique ways - adding to your conscious reality, and increasing your ability to ascertain the world around you. We would never have discovered things such as atoms if we relied solely on our senses.
Other examples of tools that aid our senses are microphones, headphones, stereoscopes, telescopes, seismographs, stethoscopes, etc.
-
How do you propose interpreting those instruments without using your senses? Is there a sixth sense called "instrument viewing" that I'm not privy to?
I look at a VU Meter on a recording device, or a mixing desk, and it tells me if the signal is within an acceptable range. So I'm using my eyes (sight) to judge an audio signal that I can only truly sense with my ears.
Is this the 'sixth sense' to which you refer?
And yes, I would use a geiger counter, and interpret the rapid clicks aurally, or look at a display visually, rather than commit to an excursion through the hot zone, and let my body tell me I was wrong later..... Sixth sense, indeed....
If your own senses aren't reliable, then it doesn't make any sense to say that an instrument perceived with those same senses is. For example, if you say "I don't trust my hearing" but then you say "but I trust this geiger counter that I can only hear using my ears" then you're not making any sense. Either you can trust your senses to correctly interpret your reality, or you can't. There's no third option.
-
How do you propose interpreting those instruments without using your senses? Is there a sixth sense called "instrument viewing" that I'm not privy to?
I look at a VU Meter on a recording device, or a mixing desk, and it tells me if the signal is within an acceptable range. So I'm using my eyes (sight) to judge an audio signal that I can only truly sense with my ears.
Is this the 'sixth sense' to which you refer?
And yes, I would use a geiger counter, and interpret the rapid clicks aurally, or look at a display visually, rather than commit to an excursion through the hot zone, and let my body tell me I was wrong later..... Sixth sense, indeed....
If your own senses aren't reliable, then it doesn't make any sense to say that an instrument perceived with those same senses is. For example, if you say "I don't trust my hearing" but then you say "but I trust this geiger counter that I can only hear using my ears" then you're not making any sense. Either you can trust your senses to correctly interpret your reality, or you can't. There's no third option.
Here's an example that might help:
If I am hard of hearing, I wouldn't necessarily trust my senses to hear a crying baby. If I have a hearing-aid, however, I would trust that if I hear a baby cry, that is indeed what I am hearing.
-
Or another example:
If I live in a very seismic location, I don't know that I'd trust my senses to detect a low frequency earth-quake. If I was looking at a seismograph, I would trust it if I saw and heard it going off.
-
Here's an example that might help:
If I am hard of hearing, I wouldn't necessarily trust my senses to hear a crying baby. If I have a hearing-aid, however, I would trust that if I hear a baby cry, that is indeed what I am hearing.
No amount of aids can give hearing to the deaf.
-
Here's an example that might help:
If I am hard of hearing, I wouldn't necessarily trust my senses to hear a crying baby. If I have a hearing-aid, however, I would trust that if I hear a baby cry, that is indeed what I am hearing.
No amount of aids can give hearing to the deaf.
Indeed. Although, there is a controversial procedure called a "cochlear implant" that can supposedly restore at least partial hearing in someone who is deaf. It does depend on the type of deafness, however.
Check this out:
http://time.com/76154/deaf-culture-cochlear-implants/
-
How do you propose interpreting those instruments without using your senses? Is there a sixth sense called "instrument viewing" that I'm not privy to?
I look at a VU Meter on a recording device, or a mixing desk, and it tells me if the signal is within an acceptable range. So I'm using my eyes (sight) to judge an audio signal that I can only truly sense with my ears.
Is this the 'sixth sense' to which you refer?
And yes, I would use a geiger counter, and interpret the rapid clicks aurally, or look at a display visually, rather than commit to an excursion through the hot zone, and let my body tell me I was wrong later..... Sixth sense, indeed....
If your own senses aren't reliable, then it doesn't make any sense to say that an instrument perceived with those same senses is. For example, if you say "I don't trust my hearing" but then you say "but I trust this geiger counter that I can only hear using my ears" then you're not making any sense. Either you can trust your senses to correctly interpret your reality, or you can't. There's no third option.
Yes, it is true that our brains can only receive information through our five senses (and I never referred to a sixth one, in fact I pointed out I don't have one). Because of this our perception of the world is never 100% reliable, however the purpose of scientific equipment as well as the whole scientific method have been developed for the very reason of minimizing these inaccuracies.
For why I would trust an instrument over my own senses is simply because it has been built for the purpose of measuring a specific phenomena.
-
If your own senses aren't reliable, then it doesn't make any sense to say that an instrument perceived with those same senses is.
The instruments are there to tell us what is around us that our senses simply cannot detect, and perhaps render the information in the form that we can perceive them with another sense that doesn't correspond directly with what it being detected. As I pointed out above, a geiger counter providing an audio, visual, or tactile cue to something that is outright undetectable to humans. We have no sense which will detect it until we've been exposed to it and fall ill later. We cannot rely on our senses here.
The CD player carries a warning not to operate it because the laser light is invisible to our naked eye, but still harmful. We cannot rely on our senses.
Humans cannot hear the dog whistle, but will happily use it to summon their pet.
Humans cannot detect the ultrasonic chirping of bats, but will happily build a device to halve or quarter their frequency, and render them audible in order to detect the presence of bats.
etc etc
For example, if you say "I don't trust my hearing" but then you say "but I trust this geiger counter that I can only hear using my ears" then you're not making any sense. Either you can trust your senses to correctly interpret your reality, or you can't. There's no third option.
You cannot hear radioactivity. You cannot see it. You cannot taste it. You cannot touch it. You cannot smell it. It's not a case of not trusting one of your senses, it's a case of you being totally unable to perceive it with any of them
You have to trust in a device which will detect it and provide a cue for one or more of your senses, since you have no sense which will detect it.
I cannot trust my hearing in the bat and dog examples above, since I can't detect either. Why would I not trust a device that either rendered the ultrasonics in a range suitable for my hearing, or provided a visual alert to their presence?
I have a gas heating boiler in my garage. I also have a wireless control panel for it, which can be placed anywhere in the house. The control panel has a flame symbol upon its display, this tells me when the boiler has ignited, and is actively heating.
Are you really suggesting that I should not trust my eyesight when this symbol shows up, that I should go into the garage and stick my hand in the flame to verify that it is, indeed, a flame?
-
This is beginning to look like a first year introduction to philosophy class. It is well-known that the senses are unreliable. Example, straight stick looks bent in water. How do we know it’s not bent? Well we can use the evidence of touch, measuring devices, the knowledge that the stick is rigid, the considerable evidence of refraction and so on.
This requires a theoretical model of the world, rather than one based on the senses. Do we use the senses to observe the measuring instruments? Sure, but the instruments come with the theory as part of the package.
Zetetic philosophy also requires a theory. For example, when the sun sets it looks as though it is disappearing under the horizon. However, because Zetetism has a theoretical model that assumes the earth is flat, this has to be explained in a way that contradicts the appearance.
-
For why I would trust an instrument over my own senses is simply because it has been built for the purpose of measuring a specific phenomena.
It's impossible to trust an instrument over your own senses, because the only way you can view that instrument is via your senses. If your senses are not trustworthy, the instrument isn't, either.
-
It's impossible to trust an instrument over your own senses, because the only way you can view that instrument is via your senses. If your senses are not trustworthy, the instrument isn't, either.
If I handed you two fuel rods, one radioactive, one not, could you rely on your senses to tell you which one is safe to handle? Without waiting to fall ill from radiation poisoning at a later hour or date?
Wouldn't you rely on a geiger counter to do this for you?
-
It's impossible to trust an instrument over your own senses, because the only way you can view that instrument is via your senses. If your senses are not trustworthy, the instrument isn't, either.
If I handed you two fuel rods, one radioactive, one not, could you rely on your senses to tell you which one is safe to handle? Without waiting to fall ill from radiation poisoning at a later hour or date?
Wouldn't you rely on a geiger counter to do this for you?
Why would I allow you to hand me two fuel rods, one of which could be lethally radioactive? In fact, I don't think I would trust you to hand me anything at all in any order.
-
It's impossible to trust an instrument over your own senses, because the only way you can view that instrument is via your senses. If your senses are not trustworthy, the instrument isn't, either.
If I handed you two fuel rods, one radioactive, one not, could you rely on your senses to tell you which one is safe to handle? Without waiting to fall ill from radiation poisoning at a later hour or date?
Wouldn't you rely on a geiger counter to do this for you?
Both would be radioactive for 10's of thousands of years. But spotting the undepleted one would be very easy using your senses. Turn the lights out in the room.
-
For why I would trust an instrument over my own senses is simply because it has been built for the purpose of measuring a specific phenomena.
It's impossible to trust an instrument over your own senses, because the only way you can view that instrument is via your senses. If your senses are not trustworthy, the instrument isn't, either.
Your home is flooding with natural gas which did NOT have tert-butylthiol added for the smell. You can't see it, smell it, hear it, taste it, feel it. In other words, you'd have NO idea it's flooding your home. Would you trust the additive to inform you of the danger?
There's a reason it's added to natural gas. Because your senses cannot detect it in its natural state.
-
https://wiki.tfes.org/Leo_Ferrari
Yes, quoting a satirist is certainly going to help your case. Remember what I said about lying?
-
Why would I allow you to hand me two fuel rods, one of which could be lethally radioactive? In fact, I don't think I would trust you to hand me anything at all in any order.
The issue is not whether you trust me, nor whether you wish to court danger. The issue is whether or not you would rely on your senses to tell you where the radioactivity is, or whether you would rely on an instrument to guide you; an instrument which would trigger a sense which would not be able to detect the radioactivity directly.
-
https://wiki.tfes.org/Leo_Ferrari
Yes, quoting a satirist is certainly going to help your case. Remember what I said about lying?
I just searched your Wiki for the word “senses”. That was one of the quotes I found. It is not “lying” to reference it, it’s in your own Wiki. It is also not lying to claim that quotes from your Wiki are representitive of FE thinking. If they are not then what are they doing on your Wiki? If you feel I have misinterpreted them then fine, feel free to correct me. But your go to tactic of just calling me a liar and not elaborating is lazy.
And that is not the only quote from your Wiki I referenced, I have been through in more detail the quote from your FAQ which gives several examples of things we can perceive with our senses which it claims are evidence of a flat earth when in fact none of them are.
If part of FE mentality is that our senses tell us that the earth is flat and that adds weight to the idea of a Flat Earth then
a) No they don’t and
b) No it doesn’t.
If that isn’t part of FE mentality then maybe you should review the quotes I have referenced in your Wiki which imply it is or correct my interpretation of those quotes. Lying means deliberately trying to deceive people. I am not trying to do that no matter how many times you claim I am. At worst I am being stupid and misunderstanding those quotes.
-
It is also not lying to claim that quotes from your Wiki are representitive of FE thinking.
It most certainly is lying. You took an article that says "here's a guy that satirises us, and here's what he says", omitted the inconvenient fact that he's a satirist, and pretended that it's representative of FE thinking. It's particularly egregious, and particularly damning.
Two can play that game. Here, I can do it too:
the earth is flat
AATW clearly believes the Earth is flat. After all, he said so explicitly and I'm merely referencing his words. It is impossible for me to be dishonest about it - after all, I quoted his words verbatim! The above quote is thus representative of AATW thinking. Another victory for FES!
If they are not then what are they doing on your Wiki?
Because our job is not only to document FE thinking, but also FE history. Notable organisations and speakers who brought attention to the subject by poking fun at it are still important.
But your go to tactic of just calling me a liar and not elaborating is lazy.
Of course, you lie again. I did elaborate right here:
https://wiki.tfes.org/Leo_Ferrari
Yes, quoting a satirist is certainly going to help your case. Remember what I said about lying?
My contention is that you took an article which explicitly states that it's dealing with a satirical organisation, stripped the word "satirical", and attempted to present it as evidence of FE thinking. I do not for a moment believe that this omission was accidental. If it were, you would have reflected upon it when I first raised the issue. Instead, you chose to flatly deny it and accuse me of "just calling you a liar and not elaborating".
Thank you for reminding me to look at your other quotes. One (200 proofs) is a verbatim copy of a historical work, which we preserved because it used to be difficult to find. Another (Albert Smith), again, is a quote of a historical figure. The horizon article merely asks the question to establish a sense of intuition and doesn't rely on it at all - it is dishonest of you to pretend otherwise. Finally, your understanding of the FAQ is such an extreme stretch that I don't feel that need to take it all that seriously. We've gone from one lie to 4-5 (I'll accept the possibility of misunderstanding in the FAQ's case, since it's at least not a case of ignoring something that's been explicitly stated). Good show.
-
Why would I allow you to hand me two fuel rods, one of which could be lethally radioactive? In fact, I don't think I would trust you to hand me anything at all in any order.
The issue is not whether you trust me, nor whether you wish to court danger. The issue is whether or not you would rely on your senses to tell you where the radioactivity is, or whether you would rely on an instrument to guide you; an instrument which would trigger a sense which would not be able to detect the radioactivity directly.
How am I suppose to use an instrument that I can only perceive with my senses if I don't trust my senses?
-
Why would I allow you to hand me two fuel rods, one of which could be lethally radioactive? In fact, I don't think I would trust you to hand me anything at all in any order.
The issue is not whether you trust me, nor whether you wish to court danger. The issue is whether or not you would rely on your senses to tell you where the radioactivity is, or whether you would rely on an instrument to guide you; an instrument which would trigger a sense which would not be able to detect the radioactivity directly.
How am I suppose to use an instrument that I can only perceive with my senses if I don't trust my senses?
I think the point is that our senses alone are inadequate in certain situations.
Sometimes we need to enhance our senses with additional methods/instruments. A flashlight helps us see in a scenario where it is too dark to see without it. Would you trust your sense of sight alone to guide you out of a darkened cave? No, eyesight as a sense is null and void at that point. Maybe you could rely on touch and smell, but hopefully not taste. What if the situation makes all of your senses inadequate as given in the other examples. Then you would rely on a method/instrument to enhance your previously rendered inadequate senses to become adequate.
So no, you cannot only trust your senses if they are rendered inadequate by the situation at hand and yes, you can trust your senses if they are adequate or enhanced to become so.
-
For why I would trust an instrument over my own senses is simply because it has been built for the purpose of measuring a specific phenomena.
It's impossible to trust an instrument over your own senses, because the only way you can view that instrument is via your senses. If your senses are not trustworthy, the instrument isn't, either.
Your senses are sometimes not trustworthy. It doesn't follow they are always not trustworthy. Clearly not.
Also, the inference 'If your senses are not trustworthy, the instrument isn't, either' is not valid.
-
The question of whether or not you trust your own senses doesn't really matter. Since reality only exists insofar as you can perceive it through your senses, you are required to inherently trust what you see, hear, smell, taste and feel is tantamount to reality......
Why would I allow you to hand me two fuel rods, one of which could be lethally radioactive? In fact, I don't think I would trust you to hand me anything at all in any order.
The issue is not whether you trust me, nor whether you wish to court danger. The issue is whether or not you would rely on your senses to tell you where the radioactivity is, or whether you would rely on an instrument to guide you; an instrument which would trigger a sense which would not be able to detect the radioactivity directly.
How am I suppose to use an instrument that I can only perceive with my senses if I don't trust my senses?
So, are you now arguing that whether or not you can trust your senses actually does matter in reality? Do you have a reason to not trust your senses?
-
How am I suppose to use an instrument that I can only perceive with my senses if I don't trust my senses?
The instrument gives you either a visual or auditory reading. You can trust this if you can trust your visual sense to see it (the same way as you would trust it to be able to read a book), and/or you can trust your auditory sense to hear it (the same way as you would trust it to hear someone talk to you).
You can't trust your senses to do the work of detecting radioactivity for you since it has no smell, taste, texture, sound or visibility associated with it. So your senses can't be trusted to know what's radioactive or not.
-
How am I suppose to use an instrument that I can only perceive with my senses if I don't trust my senses?
The instrument gives you either a visual or auditory reading. You can trust this if you can trust your visual sense to see it (the same way as you would trust it to be able to read a book), and/or you can trust your auditory sense to hear it (the same way as you would trust it to hear someone talk to you).
You can't trust your senses to do the work of detecting radioactivity for you since it has no smell, taste, texture, sound or visibility associated with it. So your senses can't be trusted to know what's radioactive or not.
If my senses can't be trusted, how am I using an instrument that can only be perceived using those same untrustworthy senses?
-
If my senses can't be trusted, how am I using an instrument that can only be perceived using those same untrustworthy senses?
Once again, sometimes your senses can be trusted. But not always.
-
If my senses can't be trusted, how am I using an instrument that can only be perceived using those same untrustworthy senses?
You use an instrument to enhance your senses to make them trustworthy again.
-
How am I suppose to use an instrument that I can only perceive with my senses if I don't trust my senses?
The instrument gives you either a visual or auditory reading. You can trust this if you can trust your visual sense to see it (the same way as you would trust it to be able to read a book), and/or you can trust your auditory sense to hear it (the same way as you would trust it to hear someone talk to you).
You can't trust your senses to do the work of detecting radioactivity for you since it has no smell, taste, texture, sound or visibility associated with it. So your senses can't be trusted to know what's radioactive or not.
If my senses can't be trusted, how am I using an instrument that can only be perceived using those same untrustworthy senses?
In most circumstances, you can trust your sight, hearing, taste, touch and smell.
Can you categorise radioactivity under any of these? I don't think you can. It is outwith your senses.
Therefore, you must trust your viewing or hearing of the instrument.
-
How am I suppose to use an instrument that I can only perceive with my senses if I don't trust my senses?
The instrument gives you either a visual or auditory reading. You can trust this if you can trust your visual sense to see it (the same way as you would trust it to be able to read a book), and/or you can trust your auditory sense to hear it (the same way as you would trust it to hear someone talk to you).
You can't trust your senses to do the work of detecting radioactivity for you since it has no smell, taste, texture, sound or visibility associated with it. So your senses can't be trusted to know what's radioactive or not.
If my senses can't be trusted, how am I using an instrument that can only be perceived using those same untrustworthy senses?
There's no shame in conceding. Tumeni's arguments are sound.
-
I think we can move this along. Rushy has already acknowledged on one of my previous threads that he doesn't regard the trustworthiness of senses even an issue:
The question of whether or not you trust your own senses doesn't really matter. Since reality only exists insofar as you can perceive it through your senses, you are required to inherently trust what you see, hear, smell, taste and feel is tantamount to reality. It's possible to trick these senses, of course, but you only realize the trick when you have a "more real" experience to compare the trick against. Your senses have to fed multiple inputs, and then you decide some set of inputs is "more real" than another set. If your entire existence is a trick, you would never discover it, since you there's no objective reference frame to compare your subjective experience towards.
Not sure why he is concerned with it now...
-
If my senses can't be trusted, how am I using an instrument that can only be perceived using those same untrustworthy senses?
Once again, sometimes your senses can be trusted. But not always.
If my senses can't be trusted, how am I using an instrument that can only be perceived using those same untrustworthy senses?
You use an instrument to enhance your senses to make them trustworthy again.
If my senses aren't trustworthy, then they aren't trustworthy with an instrument either. You have to trust your senses first before you can trust an instrument, not the other way around. It sounds like you RE'ers need to be in better tune with your own bodies before you go around pointing devices at things that apparently just tell you whatever you want your reality to be.
I think we can move this along. Rushy has already acknowledged on one of my previous threads that he doesn't regard the trustworthiness of senses even an issue:
The question of whether or not you trust your own senses doesn't really matter. Since reality only exists insofar as you can perceive it through your senses, you are required to inherently trust what you see, hear, smell, taste and feel is tantamount to reality. It's possible to trick these senses, of course, but you only realize the trick when you have a "more real" experience to compare the trick against. Your senses have to fed multiple inputs, and then you decide some set of inputs is "more real" than another set. If your entire existence is a trick, you would never discover it, since you there's no objective reference frame to compare your subjective experience towards.
Not sure why he is concerned with it now...
You misunderstood my entire post. I was pointing out that you must trust your senses in order to perceive reality. These other fellows keep trying to say they don't trust their senses, but they do trust an instrument. This makes no sense at all, you can't use an instrument without also using one of your senses.
-
If my senses can't be trusted, how am I using an instrument that can only be perceived using those same untrustworthy senses?
Once again, sometimes your senses can be trusted. But not always.
If my senses can't be trusted, how am I using an instrument that can only be perceived using those same untrustworthy senses?
You use an instrument to enhance your senses to make them trustworthy again.
If my senses aren't trustworthy, then they aren't trustworthy with an instrument either. You have to trust your senses first before you can trust an instrument, not the other way around. It sounds like you RE'ers need to be in better tune with your own bodies before you go around pointing devices at things that apparently just tell you whatever you want your reality to be.
I think we can move this along. Rushy has already acknowledged on one of my previous threads that he doesn't regard the trustworthiness of senses even an issue:
The question of whether or not you trust your own senses doesn't really matter. Since reality only exists insofar as you can perceive it through your senses, you are required to inherently trust what you see, hear, smell, taste and feel is tantamount to reality. It's possible to trick these senses, of course, but you only realize the trick when you have a "more real" experience to compare the trick against. Your senses have to fed multiple inputs, and then you decide some set of inputs is "more real" than another set. If your entire existence is a trick, you would never discover it, since you there's no objective reference frame to compare your subjective experience towards.
Not sure why he is concerned with it now...
You misunderstood my entire post. I was pointing out that you must trust your senses in order to perceive reality. These other fellows keep trying to say they don't trust their senses, but they do trust an instrument. This makes no sense at all, you can't use an instrument without also using one of your senses.
Yes, you must trust your senses to a certain degree. But you must also acknowledge that there are times your senses will fail to perceive reality correctly, and as such can cause you to perceive reality incorrectly. Can you acknowledge that?
-
If my senses can't be trusted, how am I using an instrument that can only be perceived using those same untrustworthy senses?
Once again, sometimes your senses can be trusted. But not always.
If my senses can't be trusted, how am I using an instrument that can only be perceived using those same untrustworthy senses?
You use an instrument to enhance your senses to make them trustworthy again.
If my senses aren't trustworthy, then they aren't trustworthy with an instrument either. You have to trust your senses first before you can trust an instrument, not the other way around. It sounds like you RE'ers need to be in better tune with your own bodies before you go around pointing devices at things that apparently just tell you whatever you want your reality to be.
I think we can move this along. Rushy has already acknowledged on one of my previous threads that he doesn't regard the trustworthiness of senses even an issue:
The question of whether or not you trust your own senses doesn't really matter. Since reality only exists insofar as you can perceive it through your senses, you are required to inherently trust what you see, hear, smell, taste and feel is tantamount to reality. It's possible to trick these senses, of course, but you only realize the trick when you have a "more real" experience to compare the trick against. Your senses have to fed multiple inputs, and then you decide some set of inputs is "more real" than another set. If your entire existence is a trick, you would never discover it, since you there's no objective reference frame to compare your subjective experience towards.
Not sure why he is concerned with it now...
You misunderstood my entire post. I was pointing out that you must trust your senses in order to perceive reality. These other fellows keep trying to say they don't trust their senses, but they do trust an instrument. This makes no sense at all, you can't use an instrument without also using one of your senses.
"These other fellows keep trying to say they don't trust their senses, but they do trust an instrument. This makes no sense at all, you can't use an instrument without also using one of your senses."
I think you are falling for a logical fallacy here. You are confusing a binary argument with a non-binary argument - one with many possible states of outcome. Senses are not merely on and off. Sometimes your senses are working perfectly, and it is your brain that is flawed. Sometimes your senses are off and your brain corrects their flaws and creates a reality that makes... more sense.
The ability to trust in ones senses is not merely yes or no, I trust them or I don't. You might trust them in one situation, but not another, or trust a combination of senses over another. It's not simply about input and output. It's about a complex, subjective perception of reality influenced by past, present, and future.
-
Yes, you must trust your senses to a certain degree. But you must also acknowledge that there are times your senses will fail to perceive reality correctly, and as such can cause you to perceive reality incorrectly. Can you acknowledge that?
Alright let me make this more clear:
1. Instruments are a part of reality.
2. A human being can only perceive reality via their senses.
Therefore:
3. If a human being does not trust their senses to perceive reality, they cannot trust an instrument, either.
-
Yes, you must trust your senses to a certain degree. But you must also acknowledge that there are times your senses will fail to perceive reality correctly, and as such can cause you to perceive reality incorrectly. Can you acknowledge that?
Alright let me make this more clear:
1. Instruments are a part of reality.
2. A human being can only perceive reality via their senses.
Therefore:
3. If a human being does not trust their senses to perceive reality, they cannot trust an instrument, either.
That's not how logic works:
3. should have been:
A human can only perceive an instrument with their senses.
-
Yes, you must trust your senses to a certain degree. But you must also acknowledge that there are times your senses will fail to perceive reality correctly, and as such can cause you to perceive reality incorrectly. Can you acknowledge that?
Alright let me make this more clear:
1. Instruments are a part of reality.
2. A human being can only perceive reality via their senses.
Therefore:
3. If a human being does not trust their senses to perceive reality, they cannot trust an instrument, either.
Okay. Just to be clear, in a situation where you are in a room that's getting flooded with odorless, colorless, natural gas (without the stinky additive), and there are no instruments available to aid your senses. Just you, a room, gas. Your options:
1. You trust your senses, don't detect any gas in the room.....and then you die.
2. You don't trust your senses, and still don't know there's gas in the room.....and then you die.
Your senses just got you killed, whether you trusted them or not. And this is why they add a smell to the gas.
-
These other fellows keep trying to say they don't trust their senses, but they do trust an instrument. This makes no sense at all, you can't use an instrument without also using one of your senses.
No, this fellow said that radioactivity is totally outwith the detection capabilities of your senses. None of your senses can detect it directly, until after you've been exposed, when your senses can only detect the symptoms of radiation sickness, but still not the radioactivity itself.
Since your senses cannot detect it, since it is totally outwith their capabilities, you must therefore detect it with an instrument which renders a signal in a form which your senses can detect, and which you can trust; an audio, visual, taste, touch or smell signal.
No?
-
Rushy, do you drive?
-
It is also not lying to claim that quotes from your Wiki are representitive of FE thinking.
It most certainly is lying. You took an article that says "here's a guy that satirises us, and here's what he says", omitted the inconvenient fact that he's a satirist, and pretended that it's representative of FE thinking.
As I explained, I simply searched the Wiki for quotes with the word "senses" in it.
If I missed the context of that quote then fair enough, "my bad" as the Americans say.
But it was not deliberate and therefore not a lie no matter how many times you shout it.
And given that it is very similar thinking to the other quotes, one of which is in your FAQ and therefore surely not unrepresentative, another from "100 proofs" overall my point stands.
My contention is that you took an article which explicitly states that it's dealing with a satirical organisation, stripped the word "satirical", and attempted to present it as evidence of FE thinking. I do not for a moment believe that this omission was accidental.
I cannot control what you believe, but the omission was accidental in the sense that I didn't even know it was an omission, I just copied and pasted the quote I found when I searched your Wiki. I agree it was sloppy of me to not read further to check the context but it was not deliberate and thus not a lie.
Finally, your understanding of the FAQ is such an extreme stretch that I don't feel that need to take it all that seriously.
Really? Interesting. I don't know how many ways there are to understand this sentence:
these are all examples of your senses telling you that we do not live on a spherical heliocentric world. This is using what's called an empirical approach, or an approach that relies on information from your senses
-
Why would I allow you to hand me two fuel rods, one of which could be lethally radioactive? In fact, I don't think I would trust you to hand me anything at all in any order.
The issue is not whether you trust me, nor whether you wish to court danger. The issue is whether or not you would rely on your senses to tell you where the radioactivity is, or whether you would rely on an instrument to guide you; an instrument which would trigger a sense which would not be able to detect the radioactivity directly.
How am I suppose to use an instrument that I can only perceive with my senses if I don't trust my senses?
Come on Rushy, don't play dumb.
If I want to test the idea that the horizon is always at eye level then what is the more reliable method? Is it
a) Looking at the horizon from a hill and thinking "yep, looks about eye level"
b) Using some equipment specifically designed to measure angles, pointing at the horizon and reading the measurement.
I'm going with "b". And yes, of course in "b" you are using your senses to look at the reading of the equipment, but it's the equipment doing the heavy lifting and giving you a more accurate result than your dead reckoning in 'a'.
-
Really? Interesting. I don't know how many ways there are to understand this sentence:
these are all examples of your senses telling you that we do not live on a spherical heliocentric world. This is using what's called an empirical approach, or an approach that relies on information from your senses
Neither do I. In fact, I can only think of one interpretation a person can honestly reach. We are empiricists. There are many ways in which you can use your senses to observe that the Earth is flat. The statement comes nowhere near to your allegation that "FE thinking" proposes that we should rely on our senses in situations where this would be inconclusive, or that we should dismiss all other evidence. That contradiction, once again, really flies in the face of your explanation of "whoopsie I just spat out several paragraphs of disingenuous accusations based on untruths, but they were all accidents!"
Indeed, you previously quoted a larger part of this paragraph, including this bit which renders your interpretation impossible:
The evidence for a flat earth is derived from many different facets of science and philosophy. The simplest is by relying on ones own senses to discern the true nature of the world around us.
Whoopsie! You totes accidentally 100% forgot to include a crucial part of the quote when asking for an interpretation. I bet that was totally a simple mistake and not yet another transparent attempt at misleading your audience. How clumsy, tee-hee!
Of course, if you had no intention of misleading people, you would also make an effort to amend your statements and apologise. Then again, you probably just accidentally forgot basic human decency.
-
You're still running with shouting "Liar, liar, liar!" till you're hoarse, eh?
Fair enough.
Ultimately the only person who knows my intentions is me. I have not tried to deceive anyone ergo I have not lied. I've already conceded that it was sloppy to include a quote out of context from a satirist BUT that quote does align with the quote from your FAQ so I don't think that requires a big mea culpa.
Looking back, I do agree that this statement
the FE mentality seems to be "the horizon looks flat, ergo the earth is flat"
Is an over-statement. Although I've seen that sort of thing a million times from FE people I agree it does not represent the totality of FE thinking. But "the world looks flat" is literally an example of what your FAQ states is an example of the "simplest" evidence for a flat earth. You say:
There are many ways in which you can use your senses to observe that the Earth is flat.
Are there? OK. Why then does your FAQ, when talking about using your senses, list things 3 which are not evidence of a flat earth?
"The world looks flat" - This is not evidence for any particular shape of the earth so long as the earth is of sufficient size.
"The bottoms of clouds are flat" - I suspect this one isn't even true and have no idea how this would have any bearing on what shape the earth is.
"The movement of the sun" - What is that evidence for with regards to the shape of the earth? At best it's evidence of a static earth and a moving sun, but the way the sun moves you can't tell if it's the sun or the earth moving, they would look identical so it's not evidence of that either.
And literally the next sentence is:
these are all examples of your senses telling you that we do not live on a spherical heliocentric world.
to which my response is. No they aren't. And then it says:
This is using what's called an empirical approach, or an approach that relies on information from your senses.
That does imply an over-reliance on your senses to determine things which was and remains my exact point.
You cannot perceive horizon dip, you can measure it. The entire page about horizon dip is just stating that the horizon stays at eye level and provides no evidence, it just states it as fact. The closest it comes to providing any evidence is this quote:
"The chief peculiarity of the view from a balloon at a considerable elevation was the altitude of the horizon, which remained practically on a level with the eye at an elevation of two miles
Which is hardly a controlled experiment, it doesn't claim any measurements were taken and I've highlighted the word which is the slight weakness in the argument. No actual experiments are outlined and the only one suggested is looking at a simulated 3D game.
So. While I concede that "The world looks flat ergo it is flat" is not the totality of FE thought I'd suggest it is part of the evidence often used and shouldn't be for the reasons I've outlined.
-
My understanding (correct me if I'm wrong), is that the general approach of FE theory is empiricism, which relies on your senses to ascertain (and to make sense) of your surroundings. I'm pretty sure "It looks flat", is an argument used by FEers, but certainly not used as absolute proof that the earth is flat. "It looks flat" is simply an empirical observation similar to "the sky looks blue".
Is this a fair assessment?
-
Is stating that us just looking at stuff is evidence. And sometimes it is, but let's take those examples one by one:
The world looks flat - that isn't evidence either for or against a flat earth.
It certainly is evidence for a flat earth.
If I wrote I saw this (while I was at the zoo or in Australia):
(https://cdn.website.thryv.com/8174b00c989f4c2f86c45235f686082e/DESKTOP/jpg/147.jpg)
there would be no hesitation on your part to accept that statement as evidence I sensed and winessed the appearance of a kangaroo.
The bottoms of clouds are flat - not even sure that one is true, even if it is I don't know what bearing that would have on the shape of the earth.
The bottoms of clouds are not always flat:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/98/Storm_clouds.jpg)
but for the most part, they are.
You are correct I believe as far as what impact this does or not have in terms of earth shape.
The movement of the sun - this one is ironic given that a core FE belief is UA which is used as a substitute for gravity, the claim being that it would be indistinguishable from gravity (true in many ways but the Cavendish experiment is demonstration of gravity as a force). Point being the exact same thing applies here. The sun moving across the sky would look exactly the same if the sun went round a stationary earth or the earth rotates and the sun remains still (relatively, let's not go down that rabbit hole).
UA is not a core belief of FE.
None of these things are evidence for or against a flat earth. And the horizon always at eye level page is basically one long "well, it looks like it's at eye level, so it is". Case closed! No controlled experiments are outlined on that page. Yes, if we do a controlled experiment we are using our senses to look at the results but that's not the same as just looking at the horizon, figuring it looks pretty much at eye level and saying that is evidence for it being AT eye level regardless of altitude.
There seems to be an emphasis of what you can perceive rather than what you can measure.
I disagree as I have personally measured the altitude of the sun over the flat earth.
-
I disagree as I have personally measured the altitude of the sun over the flat earth.
You have? Can you provide your parameters for the experiment, and how you accomplished measuring the altitude of the sun?
-
Is stating that us just looking at stuff is evidence. And sometimes it is, but let's take those examples one by one:
The world looks flat - that isn't evidence either for or against a flat earth.
It certainly is evidence for a flat earth.
If I wrote I saw this (while I was at the zoo or in Australia):
(https://cdn.website.thryv.com/8174b00c989f4c2f86c45235f686082e/DESKTOP/jpg/147.jpg)
there would be no hesitation on your part to accept that statement as evidence I sensed and winessed the appearance of a kangaroo.
The bottoms of clouds are flat - not even sure that one is true, even if it is I don't know what bearing that would have on the shape of the earth.
The bottoms of clouds are not always flat:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/98/Storm_clouds.jpg)
but for the most part, they are.
You are correct I believe as far as what impact this does or not have in terms of earth shape.
The movement of the sun - this one is ironic given that a core FE belief is UA which is used as a substitute for gravity, the claim being that it would be indistinguishable from gravity (true in many ways but the Cavendish experiment is demonstration of gravity as a force). Point being the exact same thing applies here. The sun moving across the sky would look exactly the same if the sun went round a stationary earth or the earth rotates and the sun remains still (relatively, let's not go down that rabbit hole).
UA is not a core belief of FE.
None of these things are evidence for or against a flat earth. And the horizon always at eye level page is basically one long "well, it looks like it's at eye level, so it is". Case closed! No controlled experiments are outlined on that page. Yes, if we do a controlled experiment we are using our senses to look at the results but that's not the same as just looking at the horizon, figuring it looks pretty much at eye level and saying that is evidence for it being AT eye level regardless of altitude.
There seems to be an emphasis of what you can perceive rather than what you can measure.
I disagree as I have personally measured the altitude of the sun over the flat earth.
I'd have no problem accepting your evidence that you photographed a kangaroo unless you tried to tell me it was an alligator, a fish or a hyper-intelligent alien being from another dimension.
A bag inflated with hydrogen gas looks empty unless we move beyond our senses. The world looks flat unless we move beyond our senses.
We don't have the capacity to sense every aspect of the world around us.
Doesn't it seem arrogant to think that any one of us can comprehend all of reality by looking out a window?
-
Is stating that us just looking at stuff is evidence. And sometimes it is, but let's take those examples one by one:
The world looks flat - that isn't evidence either for or against a flat earth.
It certainly is evidence for a flat earth.
If I wrote I saw this (while I was at the zoo or in Australia):
(https://cdn.website.thryv.com/8174b00c989f4c2f86c45235f686082e/DESKTOP/jpg/147.jpg)
there would be no hesitation on your part to accept that statement as evidence I sensed and witnessed the appearance of a kangaroo.
This is true, but that's because I know what kangaroos look like and I agree that sure looks like one.
But if you showed me a picture of a line and asked me what shape that line is part of I'd have to say I don't know.
It could be a section of one long line, it could be part of a square, it could be a section of a very large circle.
It doesn't rule out a flat earth but neither is it evidence "for" it.
The correct analogy would be you saying you saw a kangaroo but it was a long way away and your camera zoom sucks so you show me a photo of a fuzzy grey dot. I might believe it could be a kangaroo but I wouldn't say it's evidence on its own for your sighting of one. But neither does it rule out that you could have seen one.
-
If my senses aren't trustworthy, then they aren't trustworthy with an instrument either. You have to trust your senses first before you can trust an instrument, not the other way around. It sounds like you RE'ers need to be in better tune with your own bodies before you go around pointing devices at things that apparently just tell you whatever you want your reality to be.
Once again, probably for the third time, you need to beware of phrases like ‘my senses aren't trustworthy’. There are exactly three possibilities.
(1) The senses are always trustworthy
(2) The senses are never trustworthy
(3) The senses are sometimes trustworthy
We can clearly rule out (1), given examples like the stick in the water that looks bent but feels straight. The stick is either straight or not, so either sight or touch is deceiving me, ergo sense is not always trustworthy. We can rule out (2) by the same example. For my senses are correctly informing me that sense is not always trustworthy, ergo etc. Hence (3) must be true. And as I said above, we can then use our theory of reality to inform sense perception. But a theory is absolutely necessary.
So your inference 'If my senses aren't trustworthy, then they aren't trustworthy with an instrument either' is not valid. It is valid if the senses are always untrustworthy, i.e. if (2) is true. But that is false.
-
It’s not just about whether our senses are trustworthy although the bent stick thing is a good example where our sight will tell us the wrong information.
With horizon dip you need to determine whether the horizon is at eye level. Our vision and estimation of angles simply isn’t good enough to determine that unless the difference is significant, which horizon dip isn’t. But we can use instruments to measure and determine it. It’s not all about whether our senses are trustworthy but whether they are accurate enough to determine certain things.
-
It’s not just about whether our senses are trustworthy although the bent stick thing is a good example where our sight will tell us the wrong information.
With horizon dip you need to determine whether the horizon is at eye level. Our vision and estimation of angles simply isn’t good enough to determine that unless the difference is significant, which horizon dip isn’t. But we can use instruments to measure and determine it. It’s not all about whether our senses are trustworthy but whether they are accurate enough to determine certain things.
That's a good point. We can use instruments to make our senses more trustworthy.
-
Okay. Just to be clear, in a situation where you are in a room that's getting flooded with odorless, colorless, natural gas (without the stinky additive), and there are no instruments available to aid your senses. Just you, a room, gas. Your options:
1. You trust your senses, don't detect any gas in the room.....and then you die.
2. You don't trust your senses, and still don't know there's gas in the room.....and then you die.
Your senses just got you killed, whether you trusted them or not. And this is why they add a smell to the gas.
Exactly how many times have you ever found yourself in a room completely flooded with natural gas?
-
Okay. Just to be clear, in a situation where you are in a room that's getting flooded with odorless, colorless, natural gas (without the stinky additive), and there are no instruments available to aid your senses. Just you, a room, gas. Your options:
1. You trust your senses, don't detect any gas in the room.....and then you die.
2. You don't trust your senses, and still don't know there's gas in the room.....and then you die.
Your senses just got you killed, whether you trusted them or not. And this is why they add a smell to the gas.
Exactly how many times have you ever found yourself in a room completely flooded with natural gas?
About as many times as I've found myself on a flat earth. But thanks for playing. Checkmate.
-
Okay. Just to be clear, in a situation where you are in a room that's getting flooded with odorless, colorless, natural gas (without the stinky additive), and there are no instruments available to aid your senses. Just you, a room, gas. Your options:
1. You trust your senses, don't detect any gas in the room.....and then you die.
2. You don't trust your senses, and still don't know there's gas in the room.....and then you die.
Your senses just got you killed, whether you trusted them or not. And this is why they add a smell to the gas.
Exactly how many times have you ever found yourself in a room completely flooded with natural gas?
About as many times as I've found myself on a flat earth. But thanks for playing. Checkmate.
I was just asking why you need examples of situations that don't exist to support your point, but I suppose if you'd rather sit in a reality of thought experiments rather than real ones, that's up to you.
-
Okay. Just to be clear, in a situation where you are in a room that's getting flooded with odorless, colorless, natural gas (without the stinky additive), and there are no instruments available to aid your senses. Just you, a room, gas. Your options:
1. You trust your senses, don't detect any gas in the room.....and then you die.
2. You don't trust your senses, and still don't know there's gas in the room.....and then you die.
Your senses just got you killed, whether you trusted them or not. And this is why they add a smell to the gas.
Exactly how many times have you ever found yourself in a room completely flooded with natural gas?
About as many times as I've found myself on a flat earth. But thanks for playing. Checkmate.
I was just asking why you need examples of situations that don't exist to support your point, but I suppose if you'd rather sit in a reality of thought experiments rather than real ones, that's up to you.
Awww, still wanna play? That's so cute. Replace natural gas with carbon monoxide. Situation that exists and supports my point.
-
Exactly how many times have you ever found yourself in a room completely flooded with natural gas?
Personally, none. I've never found myself at the site of a nuclear accident, either.
Once more; do. you. drive?
-
I was just asking why you need examples of situations that don't exist to support your point, but I suppose if you'd rather sit in a reality of thought experiments rather than real ones, that's up to you.
Another invalid argument. 'If X then Y' can be true even if X is established by thought experiment, or if X is a rare occurrence. E.g. 'If you were standing on the moon's surface without a space suit, you would die from lack of oxygen' is a good inference. Doesn't matter if the situation would never occur.
-
I was just asking why you need examples of situations that don't exist to support your point, but I suppose if you'd rather sit in a reality of thought experiments rather than real ones, that's up to you.
Another invalid argument. 'If X then Y' can be true even if X is established by thought experiment, or if X is a rare occurrence. E.g. 'If you were standing on the moon's surface without a space suit, you would die from lack of oxygen' is a good inference. Doesn't matter if the situation would never occur.
Of course it matters if the situation would or wouldn't occur. If your arguments are built entirely on situations that you can never possibly test for yourself. You don't even know there's no oxygen on the moon, as your nor anyone else has ever been there!
-
I was just asking why you need examples of situations that don't exist to support your point, but I suppose if you'd rather sit in a reality of thought experiments rather than real ones, that's up to you.
Another invalid argument. 'If X then Y' can be true even if X is established by thought experiment, or if X is a rare occurrence. E.g. 'If you were standing on the moon's surface without a space suit, you would die from lack of oxygen' is a good inference. Doesn't matter if the situation would never occur.
Of course it matters if the situation would or wouldn't occur. If your arguments are built entirely on situations that you can never possibly test for yourself. You don't even know there's no oxygen on the moon, as your nor anyone else has ever been there!
Carbon Monoxide. Without a sensor letting them know it was getting too high it would likely have ended up with the deaths of some members of my family at one time. With it giving them warning they were able to take steps to keep themselves safe.
Radon is a current issue happening right now in some states. It's an odorless, colorless gas that leads to lung cancer with long term exposure. Without a tool to test for it you would never know it was there.
-
Let's refocus for a minute before this thread gets even more circular:
The OP question for this whole discussion is:
...
What I'm curious about is why you think human senses (which are relatively imprecise and can be fooled by both natural and man made phenomena) and perception (which is inherently limited and biased) are the best me and to draw conclusions of reality?
...
The counter argument presented by Rushy:
How exactly are you drawing a conclusion about reality without using your senses? I certainly hope you're not about to tell us you have some kind of direct connection to the universe that doesn't involve perceiving it first.
I think we have established that you cannot perceive any part of reality without your senses. If anyone is disputed this, speak now or forever hold your peace.
What we are trying to establish next, is to what degree are our senses vulnerable to perceptual effects. In order to get a sense of this, I think some basic experiments are needed so we can all see just how vulnerable our senses really are.
Please enjoy this youtube video as it demonstrates some basic ways scientists have found to fool your senses:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GnYHd9WVhA
Now, if you still think you have no reason to question your senses, or your perception of reality, you might not actually be living in reality.
Having said that, are you the best you that you can be? Well, that depends entirely on you... ;)
Use your senses wisely....
As a side note:
There are in fact some primitive cultures that do not experience some of the trickery we do in modern culture because some of the effects only work if you have a pre-conceived notion of what to expect (these are called schemas), and these schemas are created largely due to personal experiences.
-
If your arguments are built entirely on situations that you can never possibly test for yourself.
I'll give you a situation you can test for yourself.
Third time of asking; do you drive (any kind of motor vehicle)?
-
Carbon Monoxide. Without a sensor letting them know it was getting too high it would likely have ended up with the deaths of some members of my family at one time. With it giving them warning they were able to take steps to keep themselves safe.
Radon is a current issue happening right now in some states. It's an odorless, colorless gas that leads to lung cancer with long term exposure. Without a tool to test for it you would never know it was there.
Is their brain connected directly to this sensor or are they trusting one of their other senses to let them know?
-
Carbon Monoxide. Without a sensor letting them know it was getting too high it would likely have ended up with the deaths of some members of my family at one time. With it giving them warning they were able to take steps to keep themselves safe.
Radon is a current issue happening right now in some states. It's an odorless, colorless gas that leads to lung cancer with long term exposure. Without a tool to test for it you would never know it was there.
Is their brain connected directly to this sensor or are they trusting one of their other senses to let them know?
In this situation, you can only trust your senses once you also have the CO detector. So, no, you cannot trust your senses alone in this case.
If you want to see it logically:
if (a and b) then c
So here is the truth table:
a (your senses)
b (an instrument such as CO detector)
c (ability to trust your senses and reality)
a b c
false false false
false true false
true false false
true true true
This is also the function of an "and" gate in computer science.
This cannot get any more clear.
-
Carbon Monoxide. Without a sensor letting them know it was getting too high it would likely have ended up with the deaths of some members of my family at one time. With it giving them warning they were able to take steps to keep themselves safe.
Radon is a current issue happening right now in some states. It's an odorless, colorless gas that leads to lung cancer with long term exposure. Without a tool to test for it you would never know it was there.
Is their brain connected directly to this sensor or are they trusting one of their other senses to let them know?
In this situation, you can only trust your senses once you also have the CO detector. So, no, you cannot trust your senses alone in this case.
If you want to see it logically:
if (a and b) then c
So here is the truth table:
a (your senses)
b (an instrument such as CO detector)
c (ability to trust your senses)
a b c
false false false
false true false
true false false
true true true
This is also the function of an "and" gate in computer science.
This cannot get any more clear.
"a" would need to always be true (you can never "not trust" your own reality, that doesn't make any sense). Your cutesy misapplication of digital logic to the world around you is unnecessary. The mere fact that you think binary defines your reality probably speaks volumes about why that very same reality for you is so skewed.
-
Carbon Monoxide. Without a sensor letting them know it was getting too high it would likely have ended up with the deaths of some members of my family at one time. With it giving them warning they were able to take steps to keep themselves safe.
Radon is a current issue happening right now in some states. It's an odorless, colorless gas that leads to lung cancer with long term exposure. Without a tool to test for it you would never know it was there.
Is their brain connected directly to this sensor or are they trusting one of their other senses to let them know?
In this situation, you can only trust your senses once you also have the CO detector. So, no, you cannot trust your senses alone in this case.
If you want to see it logically:
if (a and b) then c
So here is the truth table:
a (your senses)
b (an instrument such as CO detector)
c (ability to trust your senses)
a b c
false false false
false true false
true false false
true true true
This is also the function of an "and" gate in computer science.
This cannot get any more clear.
"a" would need to always be true (you can never "not trust" your own reality, that doesn't make any sense). Your cutesy misapplication of digital logic to the world around you is unnecessary. The mere fact that you think binary defines your reality probably speaks volumes about why that very same reality for you is so skewed.
You are incorrect. The function I presented was "if (a and b) then c". If you have that function, C becomes your reality which is a conclusion of a and b.
However, feel free to eliminate the a = false clauses, and you still have the same reality.
-
You are incorrect. The function I presented was "if (a and b) then c". If you have that function, C becomes your reality which is a conclusion of a and b.
The function you presented is nonsense, because your reality isn't based on both your senses and something else. It's merely based on your senses, which I should remind you aren't digital.
-
Oh, let me make that clear too:
a b c
true false false
true true true
true false false
true true true
It is redundant now, so that can be reduced to just:
a b c
true false false
true true true
-
You are incorrect. The function I presented was "if (a and b) then c". If you have that function, C becomes your reality which is a conclusion of a and b.
The function you presented is nonsense, because your reality isn't based on both your senses and something else. It's merely based on your senses, which I should remind you aren't digital.
So you do not believe that you ever have a need for an instrument to aid your senses?
-
Let me put this another way (because I have nothing better to do at the moment):
You are looking across a bay at some mountains that are about 120 miles away. You are using an infrared telescope so that you can see the mountain drop and city silhouette in great detail.
At that moment, your reality that you perceive through your senses is the vast, wonderful detail of the mountains in infrared glory. If you take away the telescope, does your reality of the mountain and what you can sense of the mountain remain the same, or does it change?
It obviously would change since you can no longer see up close and personal, the view of the mountain. You haven't trusted your senses any more or less, but your reality has changed. This is the statement of "if (a and b) then c".
Also, electrical signals in your brain are digital, however there is much more going on besides just electrical signals. For example, muscle reflexes are digital.
-
"a" would need to always be true (you can never "not trust" your own reality, that doesn't make any sense). Your cutesy misapplication of digital logic to the world around you is unnecessary. The mere fact that you think binary defines your reality probably speaks volumes about why that very same reality for you is so skewed.
"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.
-
Do me a favor and learn to use the edit function. There is no reason to quadruple post.
-
Do me a favor and learn to use the edit function. There is no reason to quadruple post.
I know how to use the edit function. Thank you.
Edit (see here I go):
Furthermore, I wouldn't have to multi-post if I didn't feel that the point of this thread has been deliberately 'misunderstood'. Perhaps we should break this out into a separate thread called "Willful Ignorance"?
-
You are incorrect. The function I presented was "if (a and b) then c". If you have that function, C becomes your reality which is a conclusion of a and b.
The function you presented is nonsense, because your reality isn't based on both your senses and something else. It's merely based on your senses, which I should remind you aren't digital.
So you do not believe that you ever have a need for an instrument to aid your senses?
When did I say that? I certainly hope your education including literacy courses, because at this point you seem to not actually be reading what I'm writing down.
-
The function you presented is nonsense, because your reality isn't based on both your senses and something else. It's merely based on your senses, which I should remind you aren't digital.
Reality is chock-full of stuff which is totally outwith your sensory capability.
Ultrasonic sound. Infrasonic sound.
Ultraviolet light. Infrared light. Others.
Radioactivity
Microwaves
Radio broadcast signals
Television broadcast signals
WiFi
Pathogens
Toxins
Bacteria
etc
etc
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. Don't you?
-
You are incorrect. The function I presented was "if (a and b) then c". If you have that function, C becomes your reality which is a conclusion of a and b.
The function you presented is nonsense, because your reality isn't based on both your senses and something else. It's merely based on your senses, which I should remind you aren't digital.
So you do not believe that you ever have a need for an instrument to aid your senses?
When did I say that? I certainly hope your education including literacy courses, because at this point you seem to not actually be reading what I'm writing down.
Instead of insulting me, please tell us, what exactly are you trying to say?
Edit:
After re-reading your posts It is clear that you are not saying anything at all. You are exploiting a debate fallacy called "straw-manning". - making us refute claims that we never made. If you have nothing to add, why are you still debating?
-
Reality is chock-full of stuff which is totally outwith your sensory capability.
Ultrasonic sound. Infrasonic sound.
Ultraviolet light. Infrared light. Others.
Radioactivity
Microwaves
Radio broadcast signals
Television broadcast signals
WiFi
Pathogens
Toxins
Bacteria
etc
etc
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. Don't you?
And what do you use to view those instruments in the first place? I'll give you a hint: it's not an instrument.
-
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.....
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
This is about the third time we have gone back around in this circle.
Can you please answer these questions? Or if you have nothing further to add, please stop stringing this along.
1. Do you agree that instruments can benefit your reality by enhancing your senses?
2. Do you acknowledge that your senses and your reality are vulnerable to misperception?
-
i don't think that words like trustworthiness/reliability/accuracy/fidelity/etc have much meaning when applied to our sensory experience of the world. our only access to reality is through our senses, and we have no "objective" measuring stick against which we can compare them. they are what they are. they are always only representations of reality, and the map is not the territory.
moreover our senses are just instruments. they measure photon energies, changes in pressure, changes in temperature, whatever else. they have precision limits and measurement error. they're not a special class of anything.
-
i don't think that words like trustworthiness/reliability/accuracy/fidelity/etc have much meaning when applied to our sensory experience of the world. our only access to reality is through our senses, and we have no "objective" measuring stick against which we can compare them. they are what they are. they are always only representations of reality, and the map is not the territory.
moreover our senses are just instruments. they measure photon energies, changes in pressure, changes in temperature, whatever else. they have precision limits and measurement error. they're not a special class of anything.
If you are colorblind, are your senses as reliable to differentiate red and green or do you think you might have some difficulty? If you are hard of hearing, do you think you might be less reliable to hear a baby cry? If you have no nerves in your feet, will you be less reliable to walk?
If you are unable to fathom these scenarios, then we really have no basis for which to continue this discussion. These are all common scenarios and common ailments that we have that effect the reliability of your senses.
It is dangerous to assume your senses are always accurate. It's dangerous to assume your perception is invulnerable.
Parents leaving their children in the car all day while at work because they thought they dropped them off at daycare. What happened to their reality there?
Moreover, why are you so resistance to the idea that your reality can be skewed?
Its a perfectly normal human experience.
-
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.
Can you detect a radio broadcast, or WiFi, without a device or instrument? No, you cannot.
Therefore, your senses are not the "one and only thing" you perceive reality with. These signals are all around you, part of your reality, but without a device or instrument, you would not be aware of them. They are outwith your sensory capability. Perceiving them through an instrument is not the 'first step', as the instrument must be built before you can look at it or listen to it.
This is why your senses are not fully trustworthy, because some matters are outwith their capability. Extending this to say you cannot trust them when viewing the instrument, because you can't trust them to find what the instrument can is a false equivalence. You can trust them to view or listen to a geiger counter, but you cannot trust either your eyesight or hearing to directly perceive radioactivity.
One more time; do you drive vehicles?
-
How exactly are you drawing a conclusion about reality without using your senses? I certainly hope you're not about to tell us you have some kind of direct connection to the universe that doesn't involve perceiving it first.
Perception is literally your Brain trying it's best to make sense of a complex cloud of electrical signals created by biological inputs which are limited and full of errors when your Brain which is also limited and can be full of errors. Perception <> reality.
here are some examples:
There was a picture of a dress. Half of the people who saw the picture of the dress said it is black and blue and half of the people said it was white and gold. I saw the picture and thought the dress was purple and black. I'm colorblind. So much for perceiving "reality".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_dress
There was an audio recording. Half of the people who listened heard the word "yanny" and the other half heard the word "laurel". The word can't be both. So much for "reality"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USHPhoXwQJM
"What is real? How do you define real? If you're talking about what you can feel, what you can smell, what you can taste and see, then real is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain."
A person hallucinating perceives a floating purple elephant in "reality"
-
"What is real? How do you define real? If you're talking about what you can feel, what you can smell, what you can taste and see, then real is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain."
OMG I know this! See, the machines didn't know what chicken tasted like. Their senses couldn't get it right.
I've always seen the black and blue dress, and I hear Yanny.
-
"What is real? How do you define real? If you're talking about what you can feel, what you can smell, what you can taste and see, then real is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain."
OMG I know this! See, the machines didn't know what chicken tasted like. Their senses couldn't get it right.
I've always seen the black and blue dress, and I hear Yanny.
OMG!! It's the Martrix!!!!
-
"What is real? How do you define real? If you're talking about what you can feel, what you can smell, what you can taste and see, then real is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain."
OMG I know this! See, the machines didn't know what chicken tasted like. Their senses couldn't get it right.
I've always seen the black and blue dress, and I hear Yanny.
OMG!! It's the Martrix!!!!
I think everyone posting in this thread is exhausted from this topic. Quoting Morpheus seems to be a sign. My senses are telling me to take the blue pill.
-
"What is real? How do you define real? If you're talking about what you can feel, what you can smell, what you can taste and see, then real is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain."
OMG I know this! See, the machines didn't know what chicken tasted like. Their senses couldn't get it right.
I've always seen the black and blue dress, and I hear Yanny.
OMG!! It's the Martrix!!!!
I think everyone posting in this thread is exhausted from this topic. Quoting Morpheus seems to be a sign. My senses are telling me to take the blue pill.
So true... You can only beat a dead horse so many times! And you'd of had to be here for a couple months to get the "Martrix" quote (misspelling intentional, but unintentional at the time of original pose).... https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=10118.msg158803#msg158803
-
"What is real? How do you define real? If you're talking about what you can feel, what you can smell, what you can taste and see, then real is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain."
OMG I know this! See, the machines didn't know what chicken tasted like. Their senses couldn't get it right.
I've always seen the black and blue dress, and I hear Yanny.
OMG!! It's the Martrix!!!!
I think everyone posting in this thread is exhausted from this topic. Quoting Morpheus seems to be a sign. My senses are telling me to take the blue pill.
So true... You can only beat a dead horse so many times! And you'd of had to be here for a couple months to get the "Martrix" quote (misspelling intentional, but unintentional at the time of original pose).... https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=10118.msg158803#msg158803
Awesome! That thread should be locked so nobody ruins it.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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"?
-
"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 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G303o8pJzls)
-
"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 (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."