(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

[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

[anonymous]

possibly different deffinations of words...butttt

[anonymous]

on cause and effect and time and senses

[radanax]

of course.

[anonymous]

when all is dark, we can no longer see the niggers.

[ladyfalcon]

Good book. I'm glad to see the love of Gneil in yet another person. And the debate it sparked was interesting, as well.