Too big for a comment....
Here is the rambling on sensation in the form of an essay: enjoy...
Everything which is known to exist by any individual is known through a thought process
which can be deemed sensation. This sort of knowledge falls into two categories. The first in the
simple sensation, and under this category falls all perception; sight, sound, touch, smell and taste.
The other category is complex sensation. In this falls all sort of experienced mental phenomena
such as thoughts, desires, and memory. In themselves they cannot be known to the individual, but
through perception of them they can be. We cannot know the ding an sich, all we can know is the
perception thereof. We do, however, have one perception which may suggest that something
outside of perception itself exists. This is the perception of change, because we can logically
reason that without change, perception would be meaningless, and not capable of being
experienced. I believe Kant recognized this when he suggested that time was necessary for
experience. Philosophers from all ages have based theories around the fact that all we know
about is perception and change. While reality has been broken down many times into perception,
perception itself rarely gets analyzed. It is the purpose of this essay to analyze perception.
First of all, how many sensations are possible? We know of many, such as those included
under sight, smell, taste, thought, desire, sound, and feel. But is it theoretically possible that
there be other sensations, much in the way of sight or sound, which we have not yet experienced.
Of course, with our brain constructed the way it is, there are no such sensations, but given the
freedom to design a brain for the specific purpose of creating new sensations, is there anything
that could prevent new sensations from appearing? Theoretically, it would be some universal
constraint, such as in the nature of physics, which would prevent it. Even thus, there should be a
near infinite number of new sensations which a sentient being would be capable of. The other
limiting factor is the nature of sensation itself. What would it mean to have a infinite number of
potential sensations?
What makes a sensation a sensation? First of all, perception is primarily subjective. The
most unifying characteristic of perception is that it is subjective. Every sensation is and must be
viewed by a conscious individual, otherwise, it is not a sensation. There is, however, one other
distinct characteristic of sensation, and that is the fact that it can be further broken up based upon
differences. Sight is different from sound; red is odviously different from loud, and we know that
red is different from loud. But when asked why red is different from loud, most people havnt a
clue. They might answer that one is a color and one is a volume. Reasonable in itself, but it does
not get to the very nature of the question. What is the difference between a color and a volume?
They might again go to a more general grouping, and suggest light and sound. However we can
see that this does not solve the problem. Eventually we might have to say that there is no
difference, or that there is only difference which differentiates the two, or even that the difference
is somehow exhausted by their presence. I think that most people would believe the last of them.
Very few people would believe the first. My own opinion rests on the second because it seems to
make the most sense in the question first posed.
If we believe that there is indeed no difference between sensations, then we would have
very little ability to function. Perhaps there does exist a difference at some level, but not at the
conscious level, such that we might be urged to act in a certain way without are conscious mind
knowing exactly why. If we believe that the difference is exhausted in there being viewed, and
we cannot say anything else about them except that in being viewed they are different, we
attribute some substance to the sensation. The substance is in the viewing, because they gain
something which cannot be described in terms of anything, but which clearly distinguishes
themselves from each other. What would it mean to say that there is a potential infinite number
of substances in this way? A potential infinite number of colors, which theoretically exist and are
different, but need to exist before there differences can be recognized? Upon seeing the colors we
know they are different, and we know they are different, not because of any mental processes
which recognizes difference and assigns the mental picture thusly, but which takes the actual
sensual difference and simply reflects it onto the conscious mind. An infinite number of these
sensations would demand that these sensations exist now, without being created, as sorts of
floating supernatural substances. I believe that my theory is far cleaner.
Instead of saying that the mind sees the colors and realizes that they are different, I
believe that the mind sees difference and creates colors. The mental sensation is entirely
generated by the mind, and has no substance onto itself, as much as we might think it does
experiencing it. It is just a form of data, which is color coded, pitch coded, or taste coded into our
mind. We recognize difference in itself, and believe that we are seeing difference as manifested
itself in the form of colors. Thus when I hear a loud sound, I am not really hearing a loud sound,
although I do indeed think I am. Such a sound would require to much in terms of a universal
explanation, it strays to close to being a substance itself. If we merely suggest that we think we
hear something, or we experience difference, we save the universe a lot of work. When we ask if
there are infinite number of sensations, and sensation only means difference, then of course there
are. Any brain can create a feeling of difference from all other different feelings. It could go on
infinitely, so long as the brain can reform, it can experience new and wonderful things. Thus red
is different from loud, insofar as red is different from loud.
Everything which is known to exist by any individual is known through a thought process
which can be deemed sensation. This sort of knowledge falls into two categories. The first in the
simple sensation, and under this category falls all perception; sight, sound, touch, smell and taste.
The other category is complex sensation. In this falls all sort of experienced mental phenomena
such as thoughts, desires, and memory. In themselves they cannot be known to the individual, but
through perception of them they can be. We cannot know the ding an sich, all we can know is the
perception thereof. We do, however, have one perception which may suggest that something
outside of perception itself exists. This is the perception of change, because we can logically
reason that without change, perception would be meaningless, and not capable of being
experienced. I believe Kant recognized this when he suggested that time was necessary for
experience. Philosophers from all ages have based theories around the fact that all we know
about is perception and change. While reality has been broken down many times into perception,
perception itself rarely gets analyzed. It is the purpose of this essay to analyze perception.
First of all, how many sensations are possible? We know of many, such as those included
under sight, smell, taste, thought, desire, sound, and feel. But is it theoretically possible that
there be other sensations, much in the way of sight or sound, which we have not yet experienced.
Of course, with our brain constructed the way it is, there are no such sensations, but given the
freedom to design a brain for the specific purpose of creating new sensations, is there anything
that could prevent new sensations from appearing? Theoretically, it would be some universal
constraint, such as in the nature of physics, which would prevent it. Even thus, there should be a
near infinite number of new sensations which a sentient being would be capable of. The other
limiting factor is the nature of sensation itself. What would it mean to have a infinite number of
potential sensations?
What makes a sensation a sensation? First of all, perception is primarily subjective. The
most unifying characteristic of perception is that it is subjective. Every sensation is and must be
viewed by a conscious individual, otherwise, it is not a sensation. There is, however, one other
distinct characteristic of sensation, and that is the fact that it can be further broken up based upon
differences. Sight is different from sound; red is odviously different from loud, and we know that
red is different from loud. But when asked why red is different from loud, most people havnt a
clue. They might answer that one is a color and one is a volume. Reasonable in itself, but it does
not get to the very nature of the question. What is the difference between a color and a volume?
They might again go to a more general grouping, and suggest light and sound. However we can
see that this does not solve the problem. Eventually we might have to say that there is no
difference, or that there is only difference which differentiates the two, or even that the difference
is somehow exhausted by their presence. I think that most people would believe the last of them.
Very few people would believe the first. My own opinion rests on the second because it seems to
make the most sense in the question first posed.
If we believe that there is indeed no difference between sensations, then we would have
very little ability to function. Perhaps there does exist a difference at some level, but not at the
conscious level, such that we might be urged to act in a certain way without are conscious mind
knowing exactly why. If we believe that the difference is exhausted in there being viewed, and
we cannot say anything else about them except that in being viewed they are different, we
attribute some substance to the sensation. The substance is in the viewing, because they gain
something which cannot be described in terms of anything, but which clearly distinguishes
themselves from each other. What would it mean to say that there is a potential infinite number
of substances in this way? A potential infinite number of colors, which theoretically exist and are
different, but need to exist before there differences can be recognized? Upon seeing the colors we
know they are different, and we know they are different, not because of any mental processes
which recognizes difference and assigns the mental picture thusly, but which takes the actual
sensual difference and simply reflects it onto the conscious mind. An infinite number of these
sensations would demand that these sensations exist now, without being created, as sorts of
floating supernatural substances. I believe that my theory is far cleaner.
Instead of saying that the mind sees the colors and realizes that they are different, I
believe that the mind sees difference and creates colors. The mental sensation is entirely
generated by the mind, and has no substance onto itself, as much as we might think it does
experiencing it. It is just a form of data, which is color coded, pitch coded, or taste coded into our
mind. We recognize difference in itself, and believe that we are seeing difference as manifested
itself in the form of colors. Thus when I hear a loud sound, I am not really hearing a loud sound,
although I do indeed think I am. Such a sound would require to much in terms of a universal
explanation, it strays to close to being a substance itself. If we merely suggest that we think we
hear something, or we experience difference, we save the universe a lot of work. When we ask if
there are infinite number of sensations, and sensation only means difference, then of course there
are. Any brain can create a feeling of difference from all other different feelings. It could go on
infinitely, so long as the brain can reform, it can experience new and wonderful things. Thus red
is different from loud, insofar as red is different from loud.