(Untitled)

[radanax]

"All we have to believe with is our senses, the tools we use to perceive the world; our sight, our touch, our memory. If they lie to us, then nothing can be trusted. And even if we do not believe, then still we cannot travel in any other way than the road our senses show us; and we must walk that road to the end."
--American Gods

Comments

[thedelographer]

The error here is a failure to distinguish between what is perceived and how it is perceived. It supposes one can compare one's perception to the world, finding them to be either the same or different. For the senses to lie would be for them to give us a picture of the world that differs from the way it actually is. This is all wrong, though. One cannot compare the object with the means of awareness that way any more than one can say that New York is like or unlike the highway that took you there. The road is the means; New York is the object. One doesn't try to compare them.

The senses CANNOT lie. If we see a blue object, the color is a means of distinguishing objects by wavelengths of light. The blue is not actually out there...without humans, color would be in potency but never in actuality. All that is out there is light with a particular wavelength. Do the senses lie, since they add color where none exists in reality? No, color is the MEANS of perceiving what is there in reality.

And this is true of all sense data. Whatever we see, it is a result of reality acting on our sense organs. This is just for the sake of argument, but even if we are brains in a vat, our sight is still our means of being aware of the input we are receiving.

The senses operate by cause-and-effect and are our means of awareness. They cannot lie or be in error any more than the rain can be in error for falling. They are the CAUSAL result of the interaction of the sense organs with the world. And this allows us to use them to know the world.

[aviolentrage]

How can we be sure that anything we see is actually there in the first place? How can we be sure that the means by which we're told our standards for judging color, size, and variety are consistent in such a fashion that would render them accurate in any meaningful way? How can we be sure that science and math give us any indication of anything that's actually present in reality, if an objective reality does indeed exist? I think you're making a huge assumption here: that our senses always interpret what's actually in front of us.

Perhaps senses are, as a whole, a kind of schizophrenia: we hear it, feel it, see it, and taste it; as a result, we will most certainly vouch for its presence. But strictly speaking, we do not know that any of it is true.

[thedelographer]

Something must act on sense organs to produce our perception. So how could the sense be wrong? It's cause-and-effect no matter what happens.

"consistent in such a fashion that would render them accurate in any meaningful way?"

Accurate? But I just said, one cannot compare the means with the object of awareness. Accurate has no meaning here.

"do not know that any of it is true."

Once again, strictly speaking, truth is not a concept one can apply to perception, since it would here imply a comparison of the means with the object.

[aviolentrage]

Accurate certainly does have meaning, I would argue, for we live our lives in a very narrow scope, and perception--when taken as truth, as Gaiman was discussing in his quote--colors our impression of what reality is. One can theorize about the truth behind everyday assumptions, but surely, if someone tripping on LSD claims to see people around him, his senses could conceivably be deceptive, and the reality could be that the people weren't there. In this case, would you argue that they were there?

Realize here that I'm not arguing that what he sees is based on nothing; what I'm saying is that there can be causes that affect our extremely limited sense of perception to the point where it blurs or even hides the truth.

Or perhaps you're talking about something more complicated, saying that the senses themselves can't be wrong, because all they themselves do is interpret. To that I would reply with two things: Gaiman wasn't necessarily asserting that our senses are "wrong"; instead, I think, there's the possibility that we could interpret our senses in such a way as to lead us to false conclusions. Secondly, without extensive medical research far beyond the scope of anything of which we are currently capable, we cannot know anything about the characteristics of our perception.

[aviolentrage]

I suppose one would need more than medical research to actually prove these things, come to think about it. There're lots of potential roadblocks in the way. If you're acquainted with philosophy, as I imagine you are, you surely know that it's highly debatable that anything outside of our consciousness can even be proven to exist.

[thedelographer]

what about in the case of stigmatizim of the eyes?
a case in which one sees an extra edge around everything, that in fact *isnt there* but that is seen --
in this case i guess the argument would be that the eyes are
1. damadged or it is somehow the brain twisting it?
2. or that for example the touch sense would reveal that this sense is false
but what about the situation where the senses do not agree with one another?
then one must be incurrect otherwise they wouldnt contradict? and if one is incurrect then it lies, yes?

[thedelographer]

You might find some of my comments in my own journal useful...look for the entry in which I reposted my initial comment here.

"what about the situation where the senses do not agree with one another?"

Well, let's try to come up with an example of this. Suppose someone falls off his horse and is paralyzed. Someone goes over to touch his leg...he sees the person touch him but does not feel it. I would say his sense of touch is not lying. That he does not feel anything is a testament to the accuracy of his senses, as the fact that he doesn't feel anything allows him to identify the destruction he has suffered to his sense of touch.

[thedelographer]

"It's cause-and-effect no matter what happens"
another question,
i have wondered this quite often now,
how do you know that their is indeed such a thing as cause and effect?
this seems obvious at first, the awnser,
but think about it, what exactly IS the concept of cause and effect?
that stimulious is invoked and becusae of this there is an output of reaction, possibly?
another follow up question that seems innate,
this cause and effect implies a sense of time, correct? one cannot have cause and effect in an absense of time right?
well it seems that scientificly one denotes cuase and effect by eliminating as maney outside variables as possible right?
but as of yet one cannot eliminate the factor of time as of yet when doing an experiment to show corelation [though this brings up the whole other issue of the sceintific processes, in which science goes so far as to say that it cannot denote cause and effect thorugh expermentation and only correlation, in effect it admits that cuase and effect are possibly an impossible phenominom -mabe due to the lack of total illimination of variables]

if time bends in a relative format, and cause and effect are reliant on time then cause and effect two would bend as time bends, and if time has a relative form of existance, then cause and effect would two i think, and if that is the case how can we be certain that eaither exists?

this may have been a garbeled attempt at explanation, but think about it,
in what way are u certain that cause and effect exist? and why are u certain?

[time related example --if time is simultanious as is somtimes suggested then cause and effect also are simultanious, if cause and effect are simultanious they no longer ARE cuase and effect ---this however could go the oppisite way and be an argument against symultainous time depending on your veiw]
can cause and effect be measured? and what would that imply?
newton suggests that time is non-comencible -if this is so how does this change the meaning of cause and effect?

now u have just said that cause-and-effect are the means by which we order the world, to take that further then, likewise inregards to time.
i guess then following your argument, one cannot compair this to the object of perception --- it is the means then,
[but do you mean teh object that creates these perceptions, or the object that these perceptions are the result of, or rather that there is an object and our only way of understanding it is through these means? ...because this minor destinction has a hudge effect on this argument

[thedelographer]

I didn't follow all of that, but I have a few comments:

First, a general description of causality: When one drops a tennis ball, it bounces. When one drops glass, it shatters. I would explain those observations by pointing out that, though the action of the entity is the same-namely, it drops-the entity differs in each case. They always act in accordance with their identity. It is in the nature of glass to shatter when it drops, but a tennis ball is designed for the very purpose of being hit back and forth on a tennis court. It is in a tennis ball’s nature to bounce when it drops. Therefore, I would conceptualize the observations in the statement: Entities act in accordance with their identity or nature.
The popular “action view” of causality, on the other hand, holds that the same action will lead to the same effect. This contradicts the observations, however, since the same cause, dropping something, leads to two different effects: bouncing and shattering.

So I hold the law of causality to be a corollary of the law of identity. The law of identity, in metaphysics, means that a thing is what it is. Since a thing is what it is, it will act according to its nature. Entities act in accordance with their identity or nature.

So I hold that it follows from the law of identity, and you'll probably want to know how we are certain of the law of identity. I hold that it is an axiom. It cannot be proved, but nor can it be doubted. This could use some elaboration, but then I'd have to go completely into metaphysics...so let it suffice for now that I hold the law of identity to be a self-evident base of all further knowledge which does not require proof.

Everything I've been saying here is pure Objectivism, so I'd recommend both Ayn Rand's Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology and Leonard Peikoff's Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand for more.

If I didn't comment on something in your comment, it's because I didn't really understand it.

[mightyrikimaru]

Dude, that is smart! Go Dan go! Woo! Especially the bit about color as the means of distinguishing objects through wavelengths of light.
It's cool to read something smart like that...and Alec's original quote too...
Woo!