The senses…
Philo: Hey, my little philosopher.
Estudia: Philosopher wanna-be is more like it. How are you? And, where do we start with the senses? You said we are to validate them. How are we going to do that? After all I’ve got to use them don’t I? I can’t image where to start here.
Philo: Well, you are right. There is no place to start to prove you’ve got senses, just as there is no place to stand and say, “Look, I’ve got consciousness!” The validity of your senses, or mine, or any one’s has to be outside the province of proof. You can’t “prove” something you have to use in order to prove everything. It’s an …
Estudia: Don’t say it! Let me guess. It’s an axiom, right? The validity of the senses has to be an axiom!
Philo: Well, yes and no. An axiom all right, but not an independent axiom like existence or consciousness. We can’t prove anything about them because all proof consists in using the data provided by the senses. We reduce any idea back to that point. The senses are the first thing, the primaries of thinking. You can’t challenge them because they are self-evident. The validity of the senses is a corollary of the axiom of consciousness. A child uses their senses to reach the knowing of consciousness.
Estudia: Well, I can see that if I am conscious of existence, then the way in which I am aware of it is how I’m aware of it so the means of awareness must be valid or I wouldn’t be aware of anything.
Philo: Exactly. If anyone tells you that you can’t be sure that your senses are valid, you just ask them how they came up with that conclusion without using their senses to form the concepts that make up their claim.
Estudia: So why are we talking about the senses then?
Philo: We aren’t trying to prove the validity of the senses from any antecedent knowledge. We, as philosophers, just want to be clear about the exact function of the senses in our thinking. Lots of philosophers have objected to the validity of the senses and claim that they are misleading and not a useful starting point and should be doubted.
We don’t want to be in that boat. We don’t want to build a philosophy and all the time be uncertain if our sensory data is valid.
Estudia: Aren’t our senses just organs of our bodies that respond to stimuli? Aren’t they automatic? I mean, I don’t have to think about seeing, feeling, smelling, hearing, etc. It just happens. Don’t we all do this?
Philo: Well, we don’t all respond in the same way to the same stimulus and creatures with different sense organs, or more sensitive ones at least, might or can respond to stimuli we can’t experience. Yes, it’s all automatic, and obeys the natural laws of the universe. Your senses don’t try to deceive you and they don’t respond if there is no stimulus. Your senses do not try to interpret the stimulus; they just react or rather respond and send a message to us that some kind of thing is stimulating them. The sense doesn’t care or know what’s producing the stimulus, it just is letting you know with a signal, it’s response, that it has been excited, stimulated, by the output of whatever is “out” there and occasionally by something wrong physically within yourself. The eyes detect light, the ears sound waves, the nose, odors, etc. It is up to us to use our reason to integrate the information of the senses and interpret what is stimulating those senses.
Estudia: Can’t the senses make mistakes? After all, there are lots of instances where what you see or hear is not what’s going on out there. The distortion of light by water, say, or the Doppler Effect or echoes in sound come to mind. Or, what about people with tinnitus? They hear sounds that aren’t “out” there.
Philo: No, the senses don’t make mistakes. They respond to what is there and to what is happening. Light is being distorted by water; sound is changed by the motion of the source relative to the observer. These are all real and we can use the information to figure out all sorts of things about reality. The senses are right to report what is there; our reason must figure it out. If you see a magic trick that appears to defy reality or some law of physics, your senses didn’t lie to you, they weren’t deceived, your thinking was confused. Your mind believed what it saw or heard, but only because the magician figured out a way to make your senses respond to only a part of reality while hiding another part. Once you learn the trick, your mind can make the correct conclusion, but the senses will not react any differently. Your interpretation of what you perceive is mistaken and does not jive with reality. As far as tinnitus or other organic physiological problems, the sense of hearing is not operating as well as it could be. It is responding to something like the output from damaged hair cells within the inner ear. Something real, just not something useful and the person is considered handicapped because of the error in the physical function of the sense involved.
Estudia: So you’re saying that the senses really are reliable and illusions only prove that by indicating that our senses respond to everything available to them including the things that seem to produce the illusion.
Philo: That’s one way to say it. The senses sum up a lot of information for us. Think about what goes on when you meet a handsome guy. You see a clean, well-groomed, maybe tanned, well-postured and built, soft but firm and warm body with a pleasant smell and no offensive odors. All of that involves billions of tiny stimuli and responses by your senses. Lots of chemistry and physics are involved in your grasping this creature at once and perhaps imagining all sorts of things as well. But everything you perceive is valid and your reaction is another story. Just don’t doubt the validity of your senses.
Estudia: Philosopher wanna-be is more like it. How are you? And, where do we start with the senses? You said we are to validate them. How are we going to do that? After all I’ve got to use them don’t I? I can’t image where to start here.
Philo: Well, you are right. There is no place to start to prove you’ve got senses, just as there is no place to stand and say, “Look, I’ve got consciousness!” The validity of your senses, or mine, or any one’s has to be outside the province of proof. You can’t “prove” something you have to use in order to prove everything. It’s an …
Estudia: Don’t say it! Let me guess. It’s an axiom, right? The validity of the senses has to be an axiom!
Philo: Well, yes and no. An axiom all right, but not an independent axiom like existence or consciousness. We can’t prove anything about them because all proof consists in using the data provided by the senses. We reduce any idea back to that point. The senses are the first thing, the primaries of thinking. You can’t challenge them because they are self-evident. The validity of the senses is a corollary of the axiom of consciousness. A child uses their senses to reach the knowing of consciousness.
Estudia: Well, I can see that if I am conscious of existence, then the way in which I am aware of it is how I’m aware of it so the means of awareness must be valid or I wouldn’t be aware of anything.
Philo: Exactly. If anyone tells you that you can’t be sure that your senses are valid, you just ask them how they came up with that conclusion without using their senses to form the concepts that make up their claim.
Estudia: So why are we talking about the senses then?
Philo: We aren’t trying to prove the validity of the senses from any antecedent knowledge. We, as philosophers, just want to be clear about the exact function of the senses in our thinking. Lots of philosophers have objected to the validity of the senses and claim that they are misleading and not a useful starting point and should be doubted.
We don’t want to be in that boat. We don’t want to build a philosophy and all the time be uncertain if our sensory data is valid.
Estudia: Aren’t our senses just organs of our bodies that respond to stimuli? Aren’t they automatic? I mean, I don’t have to think about seeing, feeling, smelling, hearing, etc. It just happens. Don’t we all do this?
Philo: Well, we don’t all respond in the same way to the same stimulus and creatures with different sense organs, or more sensitive ones at least, might or can respond to stimuli we can’t experience. Yes, it’s all automatic, and obeys the natural laws of the universe. Your senses don’t try to deceive you and they don’t respond if there is no stimulus. Your senses do not try to interpret the stimulus; they just react or rather respond and send a message to us that some kind of thing is stimulating them. The sense doesn’t care or know what’s producing the stimulus, it just is letting you know with a signal, it’s response, that it has been excited, stimulated, by the output of whatever is “out” there and occasionally by something wrong physically within yourself. The eyes detect light, the ears sound waves, the nose, odors, etc. It is up to us to use our reason to integrate the information of the senses and interpret what is stimulating those senses.
Estudia: Can’t the senses make mistakes? After all, there are lots of instances where what you see or hear is not what’s going on out there. The distortion of light by water, say, or the Doppler Effect or echoes in sound come to mind. Or, what about people with tinnitus? They hear sounds that aren’t “out” there.
Philo: No, the senses don’t make mistakes. They respond to what is there and to what is happening. Light is being distorted by water; sound is changed by the motion of the source relative to the observer. These are all real and we can use the information to figure out all sorts of things about reality. The senses are right to report what is there; our reason must figure it out. If you see a magic trick that appears to defy reality or some law of physics, your senses didn’t lie to you, they weren’t deceived, your thinking was confused. Your mind believed what it saw or heard, but only because the magician figured out a way to make your senses respond to only a part of reality while hiding another part. Once you learn the trick, your mind can make the correct conclusion, but the senses will not react any differently. Your interpretation of what you perceive is mistaken and does not jive with reality. As far as tinnitus or other organic physiological problems, the sense of hearing is not operating as well as it could be. It is responding to something like the output from damaged hair cells within the inner ear. Something real, just not something useful and the person is considered handicapped because of the error in the physical function of the sense involved.
Estudia: So you’re saying that the senses really are reliable and illusions only prove that by indicating that our senses respond to everything available to them including the things that seem to produce the illusion.
Philo: That’s one way to say it. The senses sum up a lot of information for us. Think about what goes on when you meet a handsome guy. You see a clean, well-groomed, maybe tanned, well-postured and built, soft but firm and warm body with a pleasant smell and no offensive odors. All of that involves billions of tiny stimuli and responses by your senses. Lots of chemistry and physics are involved in your grasping this creature at once and perhaps imagining all sorts of things as well. But everything you perceive is valid and your reaction is another story. Just don’t doubt the validity of your senses.
posted by Rp | 9:35 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home