General - The McGurk Effect | Sikh Philosophy Network
  • Welcome to all New Sikh Philosophy Network Forums!
    Explore Sikh Sikhi Sikhism...
    Sign up Log in

General The McGurk Effect

But that would be relying on a sense we have just established you can't trust. In fact can you trust any sense :thinkingkudi:
interesting! but rejection of the senses comes to pyrrhonism.

if you used your senses to infer that you cannot trust them, how then, can you trust that conclusion, which is also just the result of your senses?

The belief "cannot trust my senses" itself has to based on logical transposition and or emotion. and any transposition is the result of a sensory implication.

whether our senses are trustworthy or not should be of little importance because they exist because we experience them...and that is all that matters.
 

findingmyway

Writer
SPNer
Aug 18, 2010
1,665
3,776
World citizen!
interesting! but rejection of the senses comes to pyrrhonism.

if you used your senses to infer that you cannot trust them, how then, can you trust that conclusion, which is also just the result of your senses?

The belief "cannot trust my senses" itself has to based on logical transposition and or emotion. and any transposition is the result of a sensory implication.

whether our senses are trustworthy or not should be of little importance because they exist because we experience them...and that is all that matters.

Ahhhhh.....but its about knowing when to trust the senses.
Differentiating hallucinations are a prime example!! If we let our senses mislead us and control us, they leas us astray :blinkingkudi:
 
Ahhhhh.....but its about knowing when to trust the senses.
Differentiating hallucinations are a prime example!! If we let our senses mislead us and control us, they leas us astray :blinkingkudi:
Hello again,

Trust?
Differentiations?
Hallucinations?
Mislead?
Control?
Knowing?


astray? astray relative to what?

I think you are confusing senses with emotional states... such as desire, pride and lust.
for example; if i lust for a beautiful woman would you blame my retina? perhaps my optic nerve or my visual cortex? or is the "astray" part the corresponding emotion that was naturally espoused when the sense was processed? maybe the processing itself is to blame? but what does that have to do with the sensory organ itself? the processing of a sense is a higher neo-cortical brain function that overlaps with memory, emotional centers and as displayed above with other sense processing centers.

when does a sense become something to be sensed?
when it is generated?
When it hits the sensory organ?
when it is processed in the brain and realized?
or when it becomes a memory?

or all of the above

are senses any use if they do not trigger any corresponding awareness or emotion or memory and then thought?

It seems, for the time being, we are not seeing or hallucinating eye to eye...
 

findingmyway

Writer
SPNer
Aug 18, 2010
1,665
3,776
World citizen!
Hello again,

Trust?
Differentiations?
Hallucinations?
Mislead?
Control?
Knowing?


astray? astray relative to what?

I think you are confusing senses with emotional states... such as desire, pride and lust.
for example; if i lust for a beautiful woman would you blame my retina? perhaps my optic nerve or my visual cortex? or is the "astray" part the corresponding emotion that was naturally espoused when the sense was processed? maybe the processing itself is to blame? but what does that have to do with the sensory organ itself? the processing of a sense is a higher neo-cortical brain function that overlaps with memory, emotional centers and as displayed above with other sense processing centers.

when does a sense become something to be sensed?
when it is generated?
When it hits the sensory organ?
when it is processed in the brain and realized?
or when it becomes a memory?

or all of the above

are senses any use if they do not trigger any corresponding awareness or emotion or memory and then thought?

It seems, for the time being, we are not seeing or hallucinating eye to eye...
Sorry about the late reply. Life has been a bit hectic lately! This started out as a lighthearted exchange and somehow became more serious!!

I am not a philosopher but relate everything to the real world around me. I am primarily a clinician. Senses are super important. I work with people who are blind and partially sighted. Ask anyone who has lost their sight and they will tell you how important the senses are! However, they will also tell you how discerning you have to be about the senses. People who lose sight later on in life often suffer from Charles-Bonnet syndrome, a condition that causes visual hallucinations. These can be quite scary until the patient is able to discern that they are not real but are a response to sight loss. They can seem quite real. Schizophrenia is characterised by hallucinations (from any sense) that seem very very real and therefore can have scary and serious consequences therefore what you said here doesn't hold:
whether our senses are trustworthy or not should be of little importance because they exist because we experience them...and that is all that matters.
If this was the case, medication would not be prescribed to control these hallucinations. If this was the case we wouldn't teach people with Charles-Bonnet syndrome to differentiate real from hallucination! When I said astray I had schizophrenia in mind. These hallucinations seem very real to the patient so although they originate in the brain, the patient interprets them as coming from the senses. According to your theory it seems the perception is what matters. The emotional response comes later but if you know the perception is false then that will change how you react to that hallucination and from a real world perspective that is vital.

Charles-Bonnet does not support believing is seeing as they are seeing but know it is not real!

From a physiological point of view, senses are a combination of the sensory organ and brain. If you have a functioning eye for example but the visual cortex in the occipital lobe is damaged, the result is blindness. Likewise, if you have a dysfunctional eye but intact visual pathway to the brain the result is blindness. Therefore you cannot separate them. This is why childhood blindness cannot be corrected even if the physiological problem of the eye is corrected or compensated-it is too late for the pathway to the brain to develop. The computer chips and other cures reported on the news will only ever allow those patients to make out shapes and possibly colour, not the same detail we can see.

Interesting conversation! The difference between philosophy and clinical observation :thumbsuppp:
 
Interesting conversation! The difference between philosophy and clinical observation :thumbsuppp:
in summary

Seeing is not always believing and Believing is not always seeing

question:
If i "see" it do i have to believe that i saw it or is it possible to see it and then believe that i did not see it...in which case...you saw nothing...or saw something you did not believe?

"we men are wretched things"

cheers
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Shabad Vichaar by SPN'ers

This Shabad is found on Page 793 of Guru Granth Sahib Maharaj, in Raag Suhi. The Shabad here is accompanied by Manmohan Singh's translation. As is typical of Bhagat Kabir Ji, he urges the human...

SPN on Facebook

...
Top