The range of sense perception is enormous. Some are color-blind, tone- deaf, indifferent to cuisine, calloused to touch, etc. A witness is a weak argument in many cases before the law. What one hears may be filtered by ignorance, drugs, bias or other confused residue of thinking/perception patterns. All human knowledge is subject to error- including reason, math and physics, etc. C'est la vie!
On Apr 28, 7:17 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote: > Heh I'm going to be a little naughty now. > > Why is it reaonable to use the our senses as the foundation of a > belief system that models our reality? > > If the only way to measure what your reality is, is via your senses, > then it seems reasonable to me to find other ways to show that our > senses do sense what our reality is. > > A fly's visual senses would render a flies world in multiple images. > Does the fly 'view' reality in the real way or do we? > > We are cabaple of only experianceing 4 dimensions, are there more? > > Put more simply, what aspects of our reality do we miss out on for > lack of senses to sense? > > On the surface I belive you are correct, to say that you do not reject > the possibility that the ghost might in fact be a ghost, and that you > put the likelihood very low on my list of probable explanations. This > I can only assume is because you have had no senseary experiance of > ghosts? > > No doubt if you saw ghosts everywhere you would change your mind, this > is human nature, and honestly I'm not ragging you on it. The point > here is really one of higlighing once again that we all have some > belifes based on faith, even if such faith is tempeed with a modicum > of reason. > > There is a link between faith and reason and the two are not mutualy > exclusive. > > On Apr 28, 12:32 pm, Chuck Bowling <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > First, let me preface my comment by saying that I was being facetious about > > only believing my senses. I do believe that there are things out there that > > are as yet unexplained (note that I didn't say things that can't be > > explained). > > > Science has yet to come up with a truly consistent theory that explains all > > aspects of reality. However, it does seem reasonable to use the our senses > > as the foundation of a belief system that models our reality. > > > I guess that what I'm trying to say is that while some may look into a cloud > > of mist and see a ghost, I would tend to believe that the ghost is just > > water droplets being stirred around by the wind. I don't entirely reject the > > possibility that the ghost might in fact be a ghost. I just put the > > likelihood very low on my list of probable explanations. > > > On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 12:52 AM, Ash <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Fair enough, I don't feel much into reading about gnosis at this time > > > either! :) It was just a reference and one I derive little sense of > > > authority from in this case. It took me a while to get my thoughts > > > collected > > > in just shabby form here but here it is for consideration, all IMO in > > > general. > > > > I can relate to feeling and thinking that way myself, however there are > > > aspects of materialism that are just unavailable to today's minds without > > > passing through some serious mind benders. In principle I do agree, but > > > only > > > on the grounds that the potential depth of interconnections in our > > > universe > > > should allow a linkage between any arbitrary thing and another. As a > > > principle of philosophy it could also be very beneficial to keep one's > > > head > > > 'tethered', very practical and utilitarian. At times much of what I hear > > > sounds like five nines of BS, but that one thousandth of intuitive > > > capacity > > > can read in real time what would take a very long time indeed to fully > > > expose in subordinate intuitive terms (or 'hard' sciences). That doesn't > > > mean it is an unworthy undertaking, but the opposite, very laborious but > > > even more important. > > > > There is an idea in various forms (out in the wild) which explains that > > > the > > > varying sciences, arts and philosophies are not at odds as one would > > > suppose > > > from studying them or being taught. As mental models or exercises to > > > prepare > > > mental perception they are schools and arts to focus and approach problems > > > or questions. As imperfect representations of fact or truth they are tools > > > of navigating information and knowledge, landmarks, references. By > > > recombining approaches in various fields you could eventually reach > > > propositions and explanations in many others refining, reinforcing, > > > undermining. This includes the normal senses, and the institutionalization > > > of perception by our genetic makeup. I think it applies to all the domains > > > of experience and inquiry that can pass through our minds and can unlock > > > vast potential for free association of transmuting symbols. With the aim > > > of > > > building better tools to comprehend and master what and where we are I > > > invite you to consider the (perhaps) one thousandth of valuable > > > experiential > > > contributions that science is just beginning to explain. Just the > > > potential > > > contributions, not the dogmas or interpretations. If for nothing else, > > > science without imagination is dead in the water, but I believe it will > > > take > > > many millennia for science to make religion (or better the spiritual > > > aspect) > > > obsolete. I think this would be an amazing Renaissance time for all areas > > > of > > > human experience.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
