rosencrantz Posted July 11, 2016 Posted July 11, 2016 In the last call in show Stef and a caller talked about the accuracy of the senses. Stef claims that the eyes give a correct interpretation of the world. However, neurology has shown that the regions in the brain that deal with optical information filter out and process a lot of information before that information reaches the mind. If you wear glasses for example, you will notice that the field of vision is not impeded by wearing glasses. You don't see the glasses you wear, instead you are presented a vision as if you had no glasses on.There is a simple experiment that shows that sense data is processed before reaching the mind. Go in front of a mirror and look into it. Then move your eyes sideways and up and down. While you can still see yourself you cannot see your eyes moving though you clearly did. That is because giving a true representation of focus would mean that you would become seasick everytime you moved your eyes somewhere else with a different point of focus.
dsayers Posted July 11, 2016 Posted July 11, 2016 In the last call in show Stef and a caller talked about the accuracy of the senses. Stef claims that the eyes give a correct interpretation of the world. Is it possible he was engaging in shorthand, a brain fart, or a particular context or resolution? Or perhaps that you are misrepresenting what he said? The reason I ask is because in his Intro to Philosophy series, he uses the example of a rod passing through the water's surface and how the eyes receive what appears to be the vision of a bent and broken rod as proof that humans have the capacity for error. In this example, our eyes are telling us exactly what they see. It is our interpretation that is flawed because of the variance in how light travels through air vs water. Somebody who understands this (as Stef does) would not say that "the eyes give a correct interpretation." Because the eyes don't actively interpret at all. 1
thecurrentyear Posted July 11, 2016 Posted July 11, 2016 Perhaps link to the time in the podcast where he says this?
neeeel Posted July 11, 2016 Posted July 11, 2016 he says they give the correct interpretation of the world, in that , they are reacting to light rays that are really there, and exist, and to chemicals and electric currents that are really there, and exist. So he is correct in that sense. but eyes dont interpret.
Will Torbald Posted July 11, 2016 Posted July 11, 2016 If in our everyday experience we would bump with invisible objects, or had conversations with invisible people, or saw shoes being made by invisible tiny people - then we would say that our eyes don't accurately present the world as it is. Although we know scientifically that there is more to light we can't see, there aren't objects we can't see. Well, except dark matter, but that's a cosmic effect we would never notice anyway.
thebeardslastcall Posted July 11, 2016 Posted July 11, 2016 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saccade A lack of precision doesn't mean your senses aren't essential for sanity or that they can't be used to rationally process your environment for intelligent behavior. A fuzzy picture of the world still tells you something useful and real and this is why many animals can do well with lower quality vision. A blind man given very rudimentary vision can drastically improve his quality of life. 1
rosencrantz Posted July 12, 2016 Author Posted July 12, 2016 It's in the call in show for July 8th. Near the beginning of the discussion with the empiricism caller. Our senses are accurate in the sense that they enable us to survive. They adapted to an enviroment and to actions done by humans. Other animals, like predators have different and hence their senses adapted to that. Both humans and say cats see the world in a different way, as it is either processed by the eyes or interpreted by optical neurons. None of them can the see world as it really is (naive realism). Eyes that are based on lenses 'make up' stuff to cover the area that is blind or when in motion or when you wear glasses.
ProfessionalTeabagger Posted July 14, 2016 Posted July 14, 2016 Skeptics of the senses become much less so when their paycheck is at stake.
thebeardslastcall Posted July 14, 2016 Posted July 14, 2016 Skeptics of the senses become much less so when their paycheck is at stake. "The senses are imprecise and it's all just an illusion... wait, what are you doing!? Stop, don't do that!"
rosencrantz Posted July 14, 2016 Author Posted July 14, 2016 Skeptics of the senses become much less so when their paycheck is at stake. Not an argument. "The senses are imprecise and it's all just an illusion... wait, what are you doing!? Stop, don't do that!" Also not an argument. How is your book project going?
thebeardslastcall Posted July 14, 2016 Posted July 14, 2016 How is your book project going? Coming along, resumed working on it a couple months ago and have been making steady progress. Made some significant changes to some of the earlier chapters and restructured their order a little bit. Still lots of work to do. Want to get it to a more settled state so I can solicit some feedback, with the goal of getting to a solid manuscript to submit to publishers or release independently. Right now, after listening to a recent podcast, Castalia House is at the top of my list for places to submit my manuscript when it's ready, but not sure when that will be. Curious how Stefan decided when his books were 'finished enough' before deciding to release them and if he got any professional editing on them before releasing them (though with his oratory and writing skills that may have been unnecessary). And now I'll get back to it...
Recommended Posts