[AATW]

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.

[edby]

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.

[Rushy]

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?

[Bad Puppy]

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.

[Rushy]

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.

[Bad Puppy]

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.

[Tumeni]

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?

[edby]

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.

[Rushy]

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!

[Curious Squirrel]

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.

[timterroo]

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:



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.

[Tumeni]

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)?

[Rushy]

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?

[timterroo]

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.

[Rushy]

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.

[timterroo]

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.

[Rushy]

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.

[timterroo]

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

[timterroo]

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?

[timterroo]

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.