[timterroo]

"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.

[juner]

Do me a favor and learn to use the edit function. There is no reason to quadruple post.

[timterroo]

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"?

[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.

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.

[Tumeni]

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?

[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?

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?

[Rushy]

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.

[Tumeni]

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.....

[Rushy]

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

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

Which was;

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

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

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

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

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

[Curious Squirrel]

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.

[timterroo]

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?
 

[garygreen]

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.

[timterroo]

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.

[Tumeni]

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?

[iamcpc]

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"




"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"

[Bad Puppy]

"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.

[timterroo]

"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!!!! 

[Bad Puppy]

"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.

[timterroo]

"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

[Bad Puppy]

"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.