Validity and the senses

[TheRobin]

After thinking about it for a while, I came to the conclusion that using validity (or invalidity) to describe the senses seems a contradiction in terms and I'm curious what other people think of that.The reasoning goes like this:-the concept of validity requires a standard according to which one can judge something to be either valid or invalid-the senses are the tools are used to give us an experience of reality  - calling the senses valid (or invalid) would require a knowledge of reality which we then could compare against how our senses show us reality-but since any knowledge of reality comes through the senses, no such standard can ever exist without being derived from the senses first- so any standard of reality against which we could compare our senses is itself derived by the same sensesSo the idea that senses can be called valid or invalid seems to be a circular reasoning and would be logically invalid as such.Or am I missing something here?

[Drew.]

Man, when I read this, I got some heavy brain fog. I feel really confused. What is it about the validity of the senses is important to you?

When you define it like that, that makes sense. Sort of. It is circular. But your definition of validity "requires a standard according to which one can judge something to be either valid or invalid."

So, what you're kind of saying is that whether something is potato depends on how potato or unpotato it is. What is potato? What is validity? You definition seems to be that something is valid if we can judge it to be valid.

When someone ever tries to argue for the invalidity of the senses, they are trying to use the senses to disprove the senses. They are relying on your eye sight and/or hearing ability to absorb their argument and process it accurately. They are relying on the senses to disprove that the senses are reliable. Potato.

 

[TheRobin]

 

Man, when I read this, I got some heavy brain fog. I feel really confused. What is it about the validity of the senses is important to you?

Well, fundamentally, I want to have a clear non-contradictory understanding between the relation of my mind and myself and reality in order to have a coneptual framework that I can use as the basis of any inquiry about reality and truth.

 

When you define it like that, that makes sense. Sort of. It is circular. But your definition of validity "requires a standard according to which one can judge something to be either valid or invalid."

I don't think that's just "my definition" that's just how the concept of validity is usually applied. Things aren't valid in a vacuum, they're valid or invalid in regards to a certain other thing or context and logically that context can't be created by the thing whose validity is in question, can it?

Or can you give me your definition of the term then instead and show me how I missapplied it or given it a new definition that's not the one usually used when talking about validity and senses?

 

So, what you're kind of saying is that whether something is potato depends on how potato or unpotato it is.

No, I'm saying that this is in essence what the question of validity in regards to the senses says.

 

When someone ever tries to argue for the invalidity of the senses, they are trying to use the senses to disprove the senses. They are relying on your eye sight and/or hearing ability to absorb their argument and process it accurately. They are relying on the senses to disprove that the senses are reliable. Potato.

 

just to make certain there's no misunderstanding I'm not arguing for any invalidity here, I'm arguing that the concept of validity is misapplied in regards to the senses.

I don't want to disprove that 3+green=cat, I just say it's a meanigless equation to begin with.

[Drew.]

I'm still feeling confused. As intellectual as I like to be, I would prefer if you either used simpler language or you defined your concepts. We've never interacted before, so I don't have a clear idea of where you're coming from. I also feel attacked. I felt attacked when I read "'my definition.'" The thought is that you are trying to use the weight of the arguments of others in order to get me to doubt myself. I said "your definition" because it was the one you posted. I was not asserting that you were trying to prove the senses as valid or invalid, but that was the definition that you gave. My concluding sentences were how I argue for the validity of the senses.

If that is the definition that is applied, then yes. It is completely circular logic. But what you are after is a clear understanding in regards to the validity of the senses. I don't think that this would be a good place for a conclusion.

Validity to me means how close one's percepts, thoughts, etc. are with actual, factual reality. As human beings, we use are senses to help us discover actual, factual reality. As far as judging how valid the information from our senses are... I would say that they are as good as they need to be in order for us to survive in a hostile world. Which means that they err on the side of valid moreso than invalid. Senses can be invalid. A man who is deaf or blind has invalid information coming from those senses. Just like how we receive invalid information in regards to infrared light, ultraviolet, and x-ray; we detect none. We cannot perceive it, so our senses are incapable (and maybe also) invalid for detecting those stimuli.

It seems like your argument is, in essence, the same as the one I shared at the end of my post. Although, it seems to me like your definition for the standard of validity is a tautology.

[lyghtningrod]

I think of the senses more in terms of an ultimate given. The input I receive through my various senses are an ultimate given, something that I use to be aware of the external world and the internal (sense of balance, eg).

All the sense input we receive is valid, but it doesn't necessarily have to be true. For instance, under certain drugs or illnesses, you can hallucinate, so you can have a valid but untrue experience of a pink unicorn.

Just my point of view...YMMV

[Rick Horton]

 

After thinking about it for a while, I came to the conclusion that using validity (or invalidity) to describe the senses seems a contradiction in terms and I'm curious what other people think of that.

The reasoning goes like this:

-the concept of validity requires a standard according to which one can judge something to be either valid or invalid
-the senses are the tools are used to give us an experience of reality 

- calling the senses valid (or invalid) would require a knowledge of reality which we then could compare against how our senses show us reality
-but since any knowledge of reality comes through the senses, no such standard can ever exist without being derived from the senses first
- so any standard of reality against which we could compare our senses is itself derived by the same senses

So the idea that senses can be called valid or invalid seems to be a circular reasoning and would be logically invalid as such.

Or am I missing something here?

 

I think about senses as tools, and nothing more. You can have a really good hammer, a really poor hammer, and you can have a job that requires more than a hammer is good for. That doesn't make a hammer useless in all situations.

[TheRobin]

 

I'm still feeling confused. As intellectual as I like to be, I would prefer if you either used simpler language or you defined your concepts. We've never interacted before, so I don't have a clear idea of where you're coming from. I also feel attacked. I felt attacked when I read "'my definition.'" The thought is that you are trying to use the weight of the arguments of others in order to get me to doubt myself. I said "your definition" because it was the one you posted. I was not asserting that you were trying to prove the senses as valid or invalid, but that was the definition that you gave. My concluding sentences were how I argue for the validity of the senses.

This paragraph has me now slightly confused partially. ermm...In a way I'd love to simplify it more, but the reason I try to make every concept as explicit as possible is, that the whole debate imo stems from a point of vagueness of the terms used, so I kind of want to avoid that here.
I also posted "your definition" because I thought you were implying I kind of invented "my own definition" and/or also because you obviously seem to use the word differently (and/or implied I use it in a non-standard way) so I wanted a clearer understanding of what you mean by it, as, if you use it the way I posted, the argument for validity makes no sense, so you'd have to state how you use the word first so that I'm sure what you even mean.

I mean, if you end by arguing for the validity of the senses, but don't explain to me how you use the term differently than I, we won't get anywhere (which is also why I wanted to make sure I didn't get misunderstood, since if you end your answer by arguing for the validity of the senses, then this makes only sense as a response to an argument of the invalidity of the senses so I automatically assumed that this was the way my argument came across and I wanted to make explicit that this was not what I intended.)

 

 

Validity to me means how close one's percepts, thoughts, etc. are with actual, factual reality.

Ok, that's about how I used it too. So can you tell me how you would differentiate between "acutal reality" and "reality" then? I think I could get a better understanding of what you mean that way

A man who is deaf or blind has invalid information coming from those senses. Just like how we receive invalid information in regards to infrared light, ultraviolet, and x-ray; we detect none. We cannot perceive it, so our senses are incapable (and maybe also) invalid for detecting those stimuli.

You seem to use the word invalid now to mean that no stimulus/experience/perception=invalidty. And vice versa any perception=validity.
Or how do you equate invalidity with no input at all? I mean by that definition hallucinating a unicorn would be valid and not seeing by closing ones eyes would temporarily render the senses invalid.

That's probably not how you intended that to mean I assume, but as I see it that would be the conclusion if one would use the word like that, or wouldn't it?

 

[TheRobin]

 

I think of the senses more in terms of an ultimate given. The input I receive through my various senses are an ultimate given, something that I use to be aware of the external world and the internal (sense of balance, eg).

That's nicely put. About how I'd use the concpet of the senses too. Except that...

All the sense input we receive is valid, but it doesn't necessarily have to be true. For instance, under certain drugs or illnesses, you can hallucinate, so you can have a valid but untrue experience of a pink unicorn.

Just my point of view...YMMV

 

..if all input are to be called "valid" then the idea of "valid" vs "invalid" doesn't make any more sense imo. Like if you went to a test and all answers we're called correct no matter what you write, then the idea of "correct" loses all its meaning in that context. If that makes sense

[Rick Horton]

 

 

I think of the senses more in terms of an ultimate given. The input I receive through my various senses are an ultimate given, something that I use to be aware of the external world and the internal (sense of balance, eg).

That's nicely put. About how I'd use the concpet of the senses too. Except that...

All the sense input we receive is valid, but it doesn't necessarily have to be true. For instance, under certain drugs or illnesses, you can hallucinate, so you can have a valid but untrue experience of a pink unicorn.

Just my point of view...YMMV

 

..if all input are to be called "valid" then the idea of "valid" vs "invalid" doesn't make any more sense imo. Like if you went to a test and all answers we're called correct no matter what you write, then the idea of "correct" loses all its meaning in that context. If that makes sense

 

We can and do test our senses every days of our lives. Clearly our senses are valid, enough for a lot of things, but inadequate for other things.

[lyghtningrod]

 

..if all input are to be called "valid" then the idea of "valid" vs "invalid" doesn't make any more sense imo. Like if you went to a test and all answers we're called correct no matter what you write, then the idea of "correct" loses all its meaning in that context. If that makes sense

 

I was thinking of the difference between 'valid' and 'true' in the lgocial sense. A logical argument can be valid in that the form of the argument is valid, but with false premises then it is valid but false. So if I see pink unicorns I've either fallen into another world, or my senses were valid ('I' experienced pink unicorns) but still false, since in this world I can't experience unicorns, pink, grey or any other color.

The term 'ultimate given' is from Mises. I have found it to be very useful. His thought is this is not necessarily an absolute limit, but a given for our level of understanding.

I;m thinking all input from the senses is valid in the sense that they were indeed what we experienced, but then that experience must be run through our brain in the search for what is both true and valid.

[TheRobin]

 

 

..if all input are to be called "valid" then the idea of "valid" vs "invalid" doesn't make any more sense imo. Like if you went to a test and all answers we're called correct no matter what you write, then the idea of "correct" loses all its meaning in that context. If that makes sense

 

I was thinking of the difference between 'valid' and 'true' in the lgocial sense. A logical argument can be valid in that the form of the argument is valid, but with false premises then it is valid but false. So if I see pink unicorns I've either fallen into another world, or my senses were valid ('I' experienced pink unicorns) but still false, since in this world I can't experience unicorns, pink, grey or any other color.

The term 'ultimate given' is from Mises. I have found it to be very useful. His thought is this is not necessarily an absolute limit, but a given for our level of understanding.

I;m thinking all input from the senses is valid in the sense that they were indeed what we experienced, but then that experience must be run through our brain in the search for what is both true and valid.

 

I still don't understand how it would look in your example if the senses were invalid. (I mean, an argument can be invalid and have true premises, but I don't see how that could be applied to the senses in that way)

[lyghtningrod]

I don't see how the senses can be invalid, I think is where I'm going with this. They are the given, beyond my current state of knowledge to dissect into their component parts. 

For example, I accept the solidity of this table I'm working on, even though part of me is aware it is mostly space, with little tiny balls orbiting larger balls. But that is a conceptual understanding that could prove to be totally wrong in the future. But for now it is an ultimate given that matter in certain configurations is solid rather than amorphous. If we were to move beyond that understanding, it might be possible to be able to move a solid object through another solid object, ala some science fiction.

Perhaps you are attempting to go beyond the given to a better understanding than what we currently know.

 

[Drew.]

There is no difference between actual reality and reality. There is reality and there is fantasy. I use the "actual, factual" because they both mean accurate and they rhyme.

That last part was definitely me riffing on my own ideas. I am not certain of them, but they seem to make sense to me. I would say that a lack of perception of something is a degree of invalidity. It is there, but we don't experience it. In essence, we act as if it's not there. Really, the opposite is true. I would say that closing one's eyes to have a dream is to render the senses invalid in terms of detecting actual, factual reality.

[fingolfin]

Before mankind came along and invented logic, existence was humming along nicely without it.

One of the reasons we use the scientific method to explain phenomena is precisely because the senses are limited and can be easily tricked. The earth doesn't exist because we can see it, measure it, hear it, or touch it. We can do these things only because it exists first, and the criteria for existence is physical presence (some-thing, some-where).

Religion would have our senses believe that there is a magical spiritual "force" or "charge" binding two magnets together. In reality, only two pre-connected objects can PULL on one another via some kind of physical mediator. It's not magic, it's just counter intuitive to our senses.

The scientific method demands (1) a hypothesis and (2) a theory. One is an assumption, the other an explanation. You can't have one without the other and remain objective. They're are ontologically and axiomatically linked. The scientific method is the only way we can understand reality objectively. Science only shows us what is possible. It does not prove or validate or deal with truths and absolutes. (These are all subjective or irrational concepts.) Science is strictly possible or impossible (loosely: rational, irrational). No other choice. The moon doesn't "probably" exist; it doesn't have a "chance" of existing. It exists, or not. God has shape, or he does not. A word resolves to an object, or concept. No other choice!

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

In order to accept the argument my senses have to be valid. 

[TheRobin]

 

In order to accept the argument my senses have to be valid. 

 

Valid compared to what?

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

 

 

In order to accept the argument my senses have to be valid. 

 

Valid compared to what?

 

Compared to reality I guess. 

[TheRobin]

 

 

 

In order to accept the argument my senses have to be valid. 

 

Valid compared to what?

 

Compared to reality I guess. 

 

And how do you know of reality if not by the senses?

(Cause if you answer that you know of reality via the senses, then you're effectively comparing the senses to themselves, but this would be quite an exception of how the idea of validation works and is applied compared to everywhere else where you apply the idea of validity, wouldn't it?)

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

Well how do know of the senses if not by reality?

I think you can only compare what is sensed (or assumed to be sensed) to the senses. 

[TheRobin]

 

Well how do know of the senses if not by reality?

I think you can only compare what is sensed (or assumed to be sensed) to the senses. 

 

I'm not sure I understand the question in the way it's intended, but as I understand it I'd answer that I know of the senses, because they work. I know I have vision, because I experience vision.

I don't understand what you mean with comparing what is sensed to the senses, could you give me a concrete example of that?

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

If you know of the senses because they work and you experience them then you know of reality because it works and you experience it. There's no magical barrier between your senses and reality. The lense/apparatus of a camera is not necessarily distinct in nature from the things it's photographing. What is sensed is the light refleted of the objects. 

[TheRobin]

 

If you know of the senses because they work and you experience them then you know of reality because it works and you experience it. There's no magical barrier between your senses and reality. The lense/apparatus of a camera is not necessarily distinct in nature from the things it's photographing. What is sensed is the light refleted of the objects. 

 

Not sure what you mean with reality then, if you define it as something that "works".

The rest has nothing to do with my argument, which is that the concept of validity is missapplied when it comes to the senses because there's no standard to compare it to that wouldn't come from the same senses to begin with.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

How can you then define senses as something that works? What's the difference between your senses and reality? 

 

 

[TheRobin]

 

How can you then define senses as something that works? What's the difference between your senses and reality? 

 

Because they work (as in function). Or sometimes they don't. That's how I can say they work (or not). Reality doesn't ever "stop working" that's why the concept of it "working" makes no sense imo.

My senses are part of my body and transmit stimuli to my brain. Reality is everything that is, inculding but not limited to, my senses.

[Rick Horton]

 

 

How can you then define senses as something that works? What's the difference between your senses and reality? 

 

Because they work (as in function). Or sometimes they don't. That's how I can say they work (or not). Reality doesn't ever "stop working" that's why the concept of it "working" makes no sense imo.

My senses are part of my body and transmit stimuli to my brain. Reality is everything that is, inculding but not limited to, my senses.

 

And for me, reality is nothing more than my senses. 

[RestoringGuy]

I doubt anybody believes "reality=the senses", for it would leave one in the position of denying all things until they are sensed and only then do they become real.  The coming and going of reality (the moon is unreal after you look away from it) goes against I think every definition.  If you mean that which can in principle be sensed, then I would agree.  But you still have to deal with highly indirect observations, through lenses and digital imagery and sensors of a very abstract nature to decide if you count this as "sensation".  I am thinking the imperfections in our eyes and getting a stuffy nose changes our direct senses, but would you say reality morphs itself based on your personal health conditions?  If I hear a story told by some guy about what he sees on the bus, I extend my senses.  He is a tool, like eyeglasses but perhaps much more unreliable, allowing me to see more than I can personally see.  I do not get how I can classify his story as unreal just because I have no first hand visual.

[PatrickC]

My senses are part of my body and transmit stimuli to my brain. Reality is everything that is, inculding but not limited to, my senses.

Yes I agree with this. I cant recall the philosopher now who said that once I close the door on a room, nothing can possibly exist within it. Or something along those lines. This is quite absurd because we clearly know that what we left inside that room (unless someone removes it), will be there when we return. Reality can always be beyond our senses (within reason). I know the sun still exists even at night when I cannot see it. 

[Rick Horton]

 

My senses are part of my body and transmit stimuli to my brain. Reality is everything that is, inculding but not limited to, my senses.

Yes I agree with this. I cant recall the philosopher now who said that once I close the door on a room, nothing can possibly exist within it. Or something along those lines. This is quite absurd because we clearly know that what we left inside that room (unless someone removes it), will be there when we return. Reality can always be beyond our senses (within reason). I know the sun still exists even at night when I cannot see it. 

 

Alzheimers patients would have a hard time with that concept. They might not remember what was in the room to begin with. For them there is a problem, if they use first principals to argue reality, since they would have to go on other people's word. Since I don't seem to have Alzheimers I'm pretty sure that a room's content will remain stable between the time I experience the room until the next, at least to a degree, minus outside interference, and other things that change within a room naturally. But to me, reality does equal my senses, and nothing beyond that. Eye glasses still have to deal with my senses, etc...Reality probably exists beyond me, sure. But it really doesn't matter.

[Arius]

- so any standard of reality against which we could compare our senses is itself derived by the same senses

I think the wall is blue.  You agree that the wall is blue.  The wall looks blue to both you and me.  That does not necessarily mean the wall is blue, though it does mean that the wall is blue in every testable way.

Reality is, at best, knowable within the context of the standards of evidence used by the individual.  Of course, that's just a simple explanation of applied epistemology.

I think that, more often than not, when people refer to the invalidity of the senses, they actually believe that the mind's failure to understand sensory information is a problem of sense, and not a problem of mind.

 

 

[Rick Horton]

 

- so any standard of reality against which we could compare our senses is itself derived by the same senses

I think the wall is blue.  You agree that the wall is blue.  The wall looks blue to both you and me.  That does not necessarily mean the wall is blue, though it does mean that the wall is blue in every testable way.

Reality is, at best, knowable within the context of the standards of evidence used by the individual.  Of course, that's just a simple explanation of applied epistemology.

I think that, more often than not, when people refer to the invalidity of the senses, they actually believe that the mind's failure to understand sensory information is a problem of sense, and not a problem of mind.

 

 

 

The mind isn't independent of the senses. If I didn't have any senses/sense, I wouldn't have a reality.

[Arius]

[View:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WM8bTdBs-cw]

[Rick Horton]

 

[View:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WM8bTdBs-cw]

 

What's your point?

 

[RestoringGuy]

 

The mind isn't independent of the senses. If I didn't have any senses/sense, I wouldn't have a reality.

 

That is not reality.  Isn't that experience?  Reality and experience are distinct, which can be proven by the origin of consciousness.  If you equate reality with the senses and experience, then there is no mechanism for becoming conscious.  Once unconscious (or yet to become born), a person can never wake up because they lack the awareness to create the experience of waking up.  It is chicken and egg.  Physical reality must do the job of generating awareness, because there are times we do not have these senses you speak of.  Reality "as a purely mental process" is not sufficient, it is a mindfuck taught to us by colleges and new age jewelry stores.

[Rick Horton]

 

 

The mind isn't independent of the senses. If I didn't have any senses/sense, I wouldn't have a reality.

 

That is not reality.  Isn't that experience?  Reality and experience are distinct, which can be proven by the origin of consciousness.  If you equate reality with the senses and experience, then there is no mechanism for becoming conscious.  Once unconscious (or yet to become born), a person can never wake up because they lack the awareness to create the experience of waking up.  It is chicken and egg.  Physical reality must do the job of generating awareness, because there are times we do not have these senses you speak of.  Reality "as a purely mental process" is not sufficient, it is a mindfuck taught to us by colleges and new age jewelry stores.

 

I don't understand you. I equate reality with what I experience. Of course. If I don't experience it in any way at all then it isn't reality.

[Arius]

It is absolutely critical to understand the epistemology of the people with whom you converse.  Epistemology forms the foundation of validity.  If two people do not share an epistemology, they will have different standards of evidence.  What is proof to one will be absurd nonsense to another.  Regrettably, some forms of epistemology reject the possibility of statements being objectively true or false.  As such, it is (sadly) impossible to prove or disprove anything for some people.

 

Solipsism (ⁱ/ˈsɒlɨpsɪzəm/; from Latin solus, meaning "alone", and ipse, meaning "self") is the philosophical idea that only one's own mind is sure to exist. As an epistemological position, solipsism holds that knowledge of anything outside one's own mind is unsure. The external world and other minds cannot be known, and might not exist outside the mind.

Epistemological solipsism is the variety of idealism according to which only the directly accessible mental contents of the solipsistic philosopher can be known.

 

 

I can prove myself. I can't scientifically prove this outside of myself thing...

What do you mean, objectively?  Outside of myself? Because, nothing can be proven outside of my experience of reality....