Questions

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on November 13, 2009, 09:51:17 AM

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on November 13, 2009, 08:07:58 AM

Because that is the grounding assumption on which all existence is based. The point I'm trying to make is that we must trust our senses entirely, or not at all. As your example perfectly demonstrates, the latter is an unteneble position, which is what Schopenhauer meant when he said that

Quote from: Schopenhauer, the World as Will and Representation Pg 104

As a serious conviction, on the other hand, it could be found only in a madhouse; as such it would then need not so much a refutation as a cure.

As you look through a telsecope with your eyes at a ship coming towards or away from you over the horizon, your senses tell you the world is round. If you use the "I trust my senses" argument, you cannot deny that one can see visual evidence of roundness if one looks at the right things.

That doesn't reveal that the Earth is round. In that instance, I am simply forced to admit that I cannot make any definite conclusions based on the sensorial evidence at hand. Moreover, I would not regard the use of a telescope as direct sensory information.

Why not?  All it is is a tube with lenses and mirrors in it. Do you think cameras will steal your soul too?

Like I said, that's assuming we treat a telescope as 'direct sensorial information', which I don't.

Quote from: EireEngineer on November 16, 2009, 07:30:33 AM

Why not?  All it is is a tube with lenses and mirrors in it.

It's manipulating light, isn't it? Hence, not direct sensorial information.

Quote from: EireEngineer on November 16, 2009, 07:30:33 AM

Why not?  All it is is a tube with lenses and mirrors in it. Do you think cameras will steal your soul too?

It's manipulating light, isn't it? Hence, not direct sensorial information.


Also, there's no such thing as a soul.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on November 16, 2009, 07:38:21 AM

Quote from: EireEngineer on November 16, 2009, 07:30:33 AM

Why not?  All it is is a tube with lenses and mirrors in it. Do you think cameras will steal your soul too?

It's manipulating light, isn't it? Hence, not direct sensorial information.


Also, there's no such thing as a soul.

So is the lens in each of your eyes. Therefore you cannot trust them when you observe that the earth looks flat.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on November 16, 2009, 07:38:21 AM

Quote from: EireEngineer on November 16, 2009, 07:30:33 AM

Why not?  All it is is a tube with lenses and mirrors in it.

It's manipulating light, isn't it? Hence, not direct sensorial information.

You don't wear glasses or contact lenses, do you Wilmore?

So is the lens in each of your eyes. Therefore you cannot trust them when you observe that the earth looks flat.

Quote from: markjo on November 16, 2009, 10:23:27 AM

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on November 16, 2009, 07:38:21 AM

Quote from: EireEngineer on November 16, 2009, 07:30:33 AM

Why not?  All it is is a tube with lenses and mirrors in it.

It's manipulating light, isn't it? Hence, not direct sensorial information.

You don't wear glasses or contact lenses, do you Wilmore?

Nope. Hopefully I will enjoy direct sensorial information for many years to come.

Quote from: EireEngineer on November 16, 2009, 10:41:34 AM

So is the lens in each of your eyes. Therefore you cannot trust them when you observe that the earth looks flat.

Uh, yes I can, because that's still direct sensorial information. Are telescopes a sixth sense all fo a sudden?

Do you know what 'direct sensorial information' means? It means information derived directly via the senses. The senses are:


Sight
Touch
Hearing
Taste
Smell


All of these senses involve the nervous system and organs of the body.

Quote from: markjo on November 16, 2009, 10:23:27 AM

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on November 16, 2009, 07:38:21 AM

Quote from: EireEngineer on November 16, 2009, 07:30:33 AM

Why not?  All it is is a tube with lenses and mirrors in it.

It's manipulating light, isn't it? Hence, not direct sensorial information.

You don't wear glasses or contact lenses, do you Wilmore?

Nope. Hopefully I will enjoy direct sensorial information for many years to come.

Quote from: EireEngineer on November 16, 2009, 10:41:34 AM

So is the lens in each of your eyes. Therefore you cannot trust them when you observe that the earth looks flat.

Uh, yes I can, because that's still direct sensorial information. Are telescopes a sixth sense all fo a sudden?

Yes, and a telescope is just an aide to improve your vision, just as a microscope or a pair of reading glasses.  Why so much animosity for the telescope?

BTW, Sensorial is not a word, I think you mean Sensory?

Quote from: EireEngineer on November 17, 2009, 07:05:47 AM

Yes, and a telescope is just an aide to improve your vision, just as a microscope or a pair of reading glasses.  Why so much animosity for the telescope?

I don't hate the telescope, it simply isn't part of our senses. Neither are glasses or microscopes.

Quote from: EireEngineer on November 17, 2009, 07:05:47 AM

BTW, Sensorial is not a word, I think you mean Sensory?

So....just how "distorted" do you think images are when viewed through lenses? A Camera has a lens on it too, and when you take a picture it comes out as a faithful duplication of the subject. So why would a telescope be any different?


Uh, no, sensorial is a word.

Senses are not reliable on many occasions anyway. You want to tell someone on an acid trip their senses are telling them the truth?

I don't hate the telescope, it simply isn't part of our senses. Neither are glasses or microscopes.

You're happy for your eye's lens to focus light onto your retina, but you're not happy for a telescope's lens to do the same thing?

I didn't say they produced distorted images. I simply said they don't constitute direct sensorial information.

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on November 17, 2009, 06:44:40 AM

Senses are not reliable on many occasions anyway. You want to tell someone on an acid trip their senses are telling them the truth?

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on November 17, 2009, 07:13:52 AM

I don't hate the telescope, it simply isn't part of our senses. Neither are glasses or microscopes.

Quote from: Crustinator on November 16, 2009, 07:39:07 AM

You're happy for your eye's lens to focus light onto your retina, but you're not happy for a telescope's lens to do the same thing?

the telescope . . . simply isn't part of our senses.

No, but you are implying that they must "distort" observations by saying that they are not direct information, and you refuse to use them. I would like to know why?

If you've consciously interfered with your sensory perception, then obviously you'll know afterwards that what you experienced was subject to chemical distortion.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on November 17, 2009, 05:35:17 PM

If you've consciously interfered with your sensory perception, then obviously you'll know afterwards that what you experienced was subject to chemical distortion.

Not if you are currently unaware of your senses being interfered with.

Quote from: Its a Sphere on November 17, 2009, 05:53:40 PM

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on November 17, 2009, 05:35:17 PM

If you've consciously interfered with your sensory perception, then obviously you'll know afterwards that what you experienced was subject to chemical distortion.

Not if you are currently unaware of your senses being interfered with.

In which case you have to assume what you see is the truth, or doubt everything, because you literally have no other choice. This is exactly what my original point was.

Distortion is a strong word, with negative connotations, which is why I have consciously not used that word, because I do not wish to convey some sort of negative attitude towards telescopes (though it is true that telescopes manipulate light). I do not "refuse to use them", and have never claimed anything of the sort. I simply don't regard images seen through a telescope as direct sensorial information.


Let's look at it this way. I use a telescope to look at a distant cow. The telescope magnifies the cow. Do I conclude that the cow has become bigger, simply because it looks bigger? Do I conclude that there is a small cow right in front of my eyes? No, I use reason to figure out that the telescope is manipulating lght in such a way that the distant cow has been magnified.


However, that means that I am not directly perceiving the cow; the telescope is mediating, and I am using my brain to understand what it does. Thus it does not constitute direct sensorial information.

The eye is a sense organ. A telescope is not. This should not be difficult to grasp.

And as I said earlier:
By the "look out your window" argument a desert dweller who has never been out of the desert, must believe the rest of the world is a desert.  Someone growing up on a tiny tropical island would have to believe the entire world is covered with water, and constantly warm.  Both views are not only incompatible, but incorrect. Each could be presented with first hand accounts from others that there are other terrains and climates as well as pictures to indicate as such.  Books, magazines, pictures, newspapers, would all contain accounts to show that there is more out there than what they have seen.  Would it be more mad of them to assume that the evidence, overwhelming evidence, is in fact true, or that the presenters of the information are part of some giant conspiracy there to deceive them?

Would it be more mad of them to assume that the evidence, overwhelming evidence, is in fact true, or that the presenters of the information are part of some giant conspiracy there to deceive them?

What a ludicrous statement, and a straw man to boot! lol Nobody is saying that the cow gets bigger, aside from you.  If the telescope has not distorted the visual subject, only magnified its appearance and allowed you to see finer detail than with your eyes alone, why would you dismiss anything that it shows?

Your objection seems to be Luddite in nature.

Two things performing the same function. One organic the other non organic. You dislike the non organic one for reasons not quite established.

One is sensorial, the other is not. My original point stressed the philosophical validity of trusting direct sensorial evidence alone.