@sister_of_mercy Said
That sounds like an exam question I had a few years ago
I think they're better than having an idealist view of existence (the whole tree falling in the forest thing), but senses are subject to error and distortion so one should use our rational capacity to ensure that what our senses are telling us is the truth.
The fact that we have a rational capacity that doubts, affirms, denies, remembers, etc. demonstratively proves that we exist in some form or other. Thinking gives us a sense of what the I is, if only a limited amount.
Sister: I think [the senses are] better than having an idealist view of existence (the whole tree falling in the forest thing), but senses are subject to error and distortion so one should use our rational capacity to ensure that what our senses are telling us is the truth.
Erimitus: For the sake of discussion let’s assume that material objects exist independent of the mind.
Erimitus: Independent studies have shown that when a tree falls in the woods and no one is there all the other trees laugh.
Erimitus: Yes, sensatory perception is not only subject to error but also myopic, and limited to a very small range of wavelengths. New sensory input is compared with memories of past sensory input to establish concordance. There can be no absolute certainties but that is all there is to work with. When what is expected to be and what is experience is inconsistent cognitive dissonance results.
Sister: The fact that we have a rational capacity that doubts, affirms, denies, remembers, etc. demonstratively proves that we exist in some form or other.
Erimitus: yes, that is a certainty.
Sister: Thinking gives us a sense of what the ‘I’ is; if only a limited amount.
Erimitus: the ‘I’ that is me remains a puzzle to …well …ME.
Erimitus: anyway, “trust but verify” if I understand you correctly. Thanks.