Existence

that was prolly by accident

But how are those memories collected other than through things we have percieved with our senses? My memory of what I had for breakfast has its inception of my sensory perceptions of that breakfast.



I understand the determinist side of this, and you're correct...this is how most people view reality. If I throw a rubber ball at a brick wall, it is my reasonable estimation that it is going to bounce, not because I have a rudimentary understanding of physics (which is true) but because every time I have observed similar situations this is what has happened. It's why a five year old reaches the same conclusion without ever having heard of the laws of physics.

However, the angle at which I'm approaching it is that without the faculty of my senses, I would not have any of that a priori knowledge of what has happened before when rubber balls have been thrown at brick walls. Even if we assume I've just been told what happens by someone else without directly observing the phenomenon myself, it's still the sensory perception of my hearing that's allowing me to collect that information.

So without that initial sensory input, all of the other methods we have of interpretation of reality are useless it seems because there is no data for those methods to process.

I guess a question that would be pertinent is whether a person devoid of any senses would have any understanding of reality at all. If you remove the natural senses and are left with pure thought, what it seems you're left with is nothing more than a computer of sorts.



Yes.

Eaglebauer: If we attempt to quantify the efficacy of a method of determining something, do we not have to have something to measure it against?

Erimiuts: yes, memory of the past.


Eaglebauer: But how are those memories collected other than through things we have perceived with our senses?

Erimitus: As I understand it, all memory is learned, and even that which is created in the mind independent of perception is ultimately based on sensory data.

Erimitus: It may be that the way the brain processes sensory data is inherent but the data itself, it seems to me, is learned.

Erimitus: I have heard it argued that some information is inherent; this could be true, I do not know, and although I cannot suggest a mechanism for inherent memory I cannot rule out the possibility either. I call inherent behavior patterns instinct. I am not sure instinct is sorted as memory.

Erimiuts: I have heard many people make reference to something called revelation but I do not understand what revelation is or how it is attained. I equate revelation to hallucination. Of course, every (thing) could be hallucination.

Eaglebauer: …what other methods do we have for determining reality other than our senses, and if there are any, how can we use those methods as a yardstick for measuring the efficacy of our senses?


Erimitus: Other methods could include reasoning, perception and intuition. (i.e. Cognition) New sensory data are compared with memory of old sensory data. If the same event has always occurred and has never, ‘not’, occurred, (e.g. a sun rise) it is not unreasonable to consider the possibility that it will continue to occur.

Erimitus: If one event has always immediately followed another event then it is not unreasonable to consider the possibility that the first event caused the second event. And if two events have always occurred together it is not unreasonable to consider that the two events are associated.

Erimitus: The greater the number of occurrences the greater the probability of continued occurrence. Here comes the however… However it is always a probability estimate and never a certainty.

Erimitus: No matter how many theories, hypothesis, guesses are formulated, ultimately efficacy is determined by trial and error ( i.e. experiment)…


Eaglebauer: I understand the determinist side of this, and you're correct...this is how most people view reality.

Eaglebauer: If I throw a rubber ball at a brick wall, it is my reasonable estimation that it is going to bounce, not because I have a rudimentary understanding of physics (which is true) but because every time I have observed similar situations this is what has happened. It's why a five year old reaches the same conclusion without ever having heard of the laws of physics.

Eaglebauer: …without the faculty of my senses, I would not have any of that (a priori) knowledge of what has happened before when rubber balls have been thrown at brick walls. Even if we assume I've just been told what happens by someone else without directly observing the phenomenon myself, it's still the sensory perception of my hearing that's allowing me to collect that information.

Eaglebauer: So without that initial sensory input, all of the other methods we have of interpretation of reality are useless it seems because there is no data for those methods to process.

Erimiuts: Yes, (e.g. skills – a person could read many books on how to swim and even write a book on swimming based on indirect experience but that person can only learn how to swim through direct experience)

Erimitus: Here comes the however …however, a person could learn abstractions and know that 1 + 1 = 2 independent of any direct experience.

Erimitus: I have heard it argued that all (a priori) knowledge was learned (consciously and unconsciously) and therefore no more than (a posteriori) data that has been processed and stored as memory; ...and when knowledge stored as memory is recalled the recollection is immediate and independent of reasoning thus (a priori).

Eaglebauer: I guess a question that would be pertinent is whether a person devoid of any senses would have any understanding of reality at all. If you remove the natural senses and are left with pure thought, what it seems you're left with is nothing more than a computer of sorts.

Erimitus: I do not believe a person could survive very long without sensory input but if it was possible I suspect that a mind with complete sensory deprivation would generate some sort of reality.

When one becomes impartial to their own feelings in making judgments or decisions regarding others, it is then when sense is reliable.

By 'feelings' do you mean sensations or intuition?

A true skeptic does not trust sensation. I wonder if anyone trusts their intuition (gut feelings) over sendation (immediate direct experience). That would be very difficult.

By feelings I mean our own personal opinions, likes, dislikes, and dispositions. And that a person whose impartial to their own feelings in regards to others when making judgments or decisions, then that person's sense serves them reliably.

For instance, you take somebody whose religious or smokes. If the religious person can see others who don't share their beliefs as normal people equal to themselves, or the smoker can understand a nonsmoker's preference to avoid breathing smoke or would naturally move away from children before lighting up, then the faculties of those two people are logical and their senses can guide them reliably.

Response to cisslybee post #38 Response to cisslybee post #38

Erimitus: By 'feelings' do you mean sensations or intuition?

cisslybee: By feelings I mean our own personal opinions, likes, dislikes, and dispositions.

Erimitus: (short answer) Although the term feelings is a lexically correct expression of what you mean it might be better to qualify the term with an adjective (i.e. gut feelings) so as to avoid confusion feeling as sensation. Although lexically incorrect, use the word intuition to describe ‘gut feelings’ so as to avoid confusion between instinct (inherited behavior patterns) and ‘gut feelings’ (learned behavior patterns). And my short answer turned out to be very long.

Erimitus: (Long answer) 'Gut Feelings' (intuitions) are based in part (and possibly entirely) on experience (sensations). We, for the most part, have reasons for what we believe to be true and we usually base our beliefs (prejudgments) on these reasons. The problem is that although intuition (prejudgments) may have a rational basis, intuition may also have an irrational basis and may actually be unconscious. Basing choices on what may be irrational or unconscious prejudgment decreases the potential for success.

I wasn't referring to gut feelings or intuition. Those are instinctive alerts.

I was simply regarding to feelings. Emotions. And my point was that when we're partial to our emotions, that interferes with our cognizance and vision, and we make decisions based on our feelings and nothing else.

If for instance, a person selects a mate because of a particular way that person looks or makes them feel, then that wasn't a choice based on gut feelings or intuition, the decision was made on emotions. And that's how people get hurt most of the time in relationships. They do not consider anything real or of value, they decide on whatever or whoever appeals to their feelings, so they trust people who will hurt them and distrust people who wouldn't. The crippling factor is feelings over reason.

Response to cisslybee post #40


OP: "To what extent are the senses a reliable guide to existence?"

C: When one becomes impartial to their own feelings in making judgments or decisions regarding others, it is then when sense is reliable.

E: (paraphrase) When impartial (unbiased) and unemotional the potential for correctly assessing sensory data increase.

E: By 'feelings' do you mean sensations or intuition?

C: I wasn't referring to gut feelings or intuition. Those are instinctive alerts.

E: My mistake. It is not incorrect to use the terms intuition and instinct interchangeably. I differentiate between intuition (learned behavior patterns) and instinct (inherited behavior patterns).

C: …when we're partial to our emotions, that interferes with our cognizance and vision, and we make decisions based on our feelings and nothing else.

E: I believe that I understand and I agree with you. Emotion, as I understand it, is a strong feeling. Emotion, a strong feeling, is typically visceral (gut feeling) and this visceral sensation is the result of intuition (experice and reasoning stored as memory).

E: The potential for a reasonably accurate assessment of sensory data increases when the interpretation of sensory input is based primarily on reason although emotion (strong feelings) should not be ignored completely.

E: what do you think?

Response to cisslybee post #38 Replacing the term feeling with the term emotion


cisslybee: …a person who is impartial to their own [emotions] in regards to others when making judgments or decisions, then that person's sense serves them reliably.

Erimitus: Being impartial (objective) may be of considerable advantage when seeking truth and knowing the truth may have considerable survival advantage.

Erimitus: I do not see how a person could be completely objective and (of course) for most our mundane decisions we rely on intuition (prejudgments).

Erimitus: (short answer) Yes I agree with you.

You're correct.

Reasoning makes self guidance reliable, but you're also right in that we shouldn't just ignore our feelings completely. The key factor is balance.

thank you for the help.