- May 4, 2006
interesting! but rejection of the senses comes to pyrrhonism.But that would be relying on a sense we have just established you can't trust. In fact can you trust any sense
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.
Hello again,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:
Sorry about the late reply. Life has been a bit hectic lately! This started out as a lighthearted exchange and somehow became more serious!!Hello again,
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...
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.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.
in summaryInteresting conversation! The difference between philosophy and clinical observation :thumbsuppp: