Knowledge And The Senses

[Zoe]

I'm having a hard time believing Descarte's "I think therefore I am."

Is there knowledge without senses?

Can we know anything without experiencing it through smell, taste, vision, sound, or touch?

And how decieving are our senses?

This particular topic has been coming up pretty consistantly within latest project, a dance based off the senses. I'd like some insight.

[scameter]

The only way to know would be if when a particular baby was born, all of it's senses were taken away, and it was essentially raised as only a brain. I think the senses are crucial, but not exclusive; we can think beyond their specific viewpoint, but we can't live without them.

[WanderingTaoist]

I'm having a hard time believing Descarte's "I think therefore I am."

Is there knowledge without senses?

Can we know anything without experiencing it through smell, taste, vision, sound, or touch?

And how decieving are our senses?

This particular topic has been coming up pretty consistantly within latest project, a dance based off the senses. I'd like some insight.

Good question! Here's my favorite answer:

1.) Raise your left hand so you can look at it.
2.) Look at your hand.
3.) Is it a hand?
4.) Here is a hand!
5.) Repeat with your right hand.
6.) Here's another hand!
7.) Ergo, there is an external world!

This is called the "Here is a Hand Argument" , and no, I didn't invent this:
Here is a Hand (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Here_is_a_hand).

Ultimately, such questions come down to this question: What is knowledge? In order to say "I know x", do I have to know with as much certainty as I know 2+2=4? The majority of people would say no, because it would be simply impossible to go through life having to prove everything in this manner.

Here's another way you could look at this situation: What is the relationship between logic and life? There are some philosophers who hold that simply because the proposition: "Everything is a dream" is a logical possibility, it does not follow that it is true in reality, and that it is a foolish waste of time to debate such a question. A proposition can be logically consistant without equating to anything in reality.

At the other end of the spectrum are those who claim that Descartes wasn't sceptical enough. "I think therefore I am." Oh really? Who or what is this "I"? How do you know it's not a different "I" each time there is a new thought? What about emotions? A new "I" each time there is an emotion? What happens when you stop thinking? Do you vanish in a puff of logic? For such thinkers, the most one can say is that "something is".

The only way to know would be if when a particular baby was born, all of it's senses were taken away, and it was essentially raised as only a brain. I think the senses are crucial, but not exclusive; we can think beyond their specific viewpoint, but we can't live without them.

I would agree with that. It's important not to rely too much on the senses, because they can be deceived. But just because they can be deceived does not necessarily mean that they are deceived. Doubt, when unaccompanied by reason, is destructive; on the other hand, reason unaccompanied by doubt can be equally destructive. The two compliment each other.

[sonrisa]

WandTao-- what happens when you stop thinking? Do you vanish in a puff of logic?

-- actually this has already been disproven: there are millions of people out there who don't think. Either they stopped altogether, or they never started to begin with, but as far as we know, none of them have vanished yet

[scameter]

When we don't think, we are perfect.

[marleylinguistics]

The only way to know would be if when a particular baby was born, all of it's senses were taken away, and it was essentially raised as only a brain. I think the senses are crucial, but not exclusive; we can think beyond their specific viewpoint, but we can't live without them.

even if you did that the thing baby growing up would still have the memory of the first thing it say to loll around in its head for years, so there would still be a remnant of the external world.

[schrodinger]

Zoe--And how decieving are our senses?

This particular topic has been coming up pretty consistantly within latest project, a dance based off the senses.

I'd like some insight.

Deaf babies still cry.

Blind babies can still be seen.

Babies with no sense of touch can still touch you.

Does this help?

[scameter]

even if you did that the thing baby growing up would still have the memory of the first thing it say to loll around in its head for years, so there would still be a remnant of the external world.

Not if it had no senses.

Deaf babies still cry.

Blind babies can still be seen.

Babies with no sense of touch can still touch you.

But they don't know it.

[Winfried]

There are some deaf musicians and blind painters in the world. So with some of their senses down, they still know what they're doing. But, if one had no senses at all, what does he/she think about? All the things I think about have to with some experience I had, or can be compared to things I experienced/read/seen/heard/smelled/tasted/felt. Only through this comparison do my thoughts take shape.

WandTao-- what happens when you stop thinking? Do you vanish in a puff of logic?
If this is true, half of my classmates wouldn't exist by now :lol:

[WanderingTaoist]

If this is true, half of my classmates wouldn't exist by now :lol:

If this is true, much of the world wouldn't exist by now :lol:

In response to scam's new signature---"I think, therefore, I may be"----

it seems like Descartes proof works---up to a point. You've proven your existence, but the proof itself says nothing about that existence. Fine, I am. What is "I"? What does my existence consist of? Does anything else exist? Something is, but this is the most elementary and basic of all thoughts, what is pre-supposed before any kind of interaction with the "outside" world takes place. It tells us nothing.

Cogito ergo sum was the first principle of a philosophy that attempted to prove everything mathematically. But as I mentioned in another thread, even if you are able to prove everything mathematically, you can't have a mathematical proof showing that it is necessary to prove everything mathematically!

And as it is, Descartes method failed; it's especially ironic that he tried to lecture William Harvey (who discovered how blood circulates throughout the body) on the circulation of blood, because Harvey's findings disagreed with his own! :lol:

[scameter]

There are some deaf musicians and blind painters in the world. So with some of their senses down, they still know what they're doing. But, if one had no senses at all, what does he/she think about? All the things I think about have to with some experience I had, or can be compared to things I experienced/read/seen/heard/smelled/tasted/felt. Only through this comparison do my thoughts take shape.

Indeed, quite the point of my theory.

You've proven your existence, but the proof itself says nothing about that existence.

Actually, my signature is "I may think, therefore I may be."

[WanderingTaoist]

"I may think, therefore I may be."

Do you doubt that you think? Surely in order to doubt, one has to think? <_<

[scameter]

I do not doubt that I think. I simply think that it is possible me thinking is an illusion.

[WanderingTaoist]

I simply think that it is possible me thinking is an illusion.

How can that be? Even if your thinking is an illusion, there must be something to receive that illusion, and, indeed, recognize the possibility of it as an illusion. What else is this but "thinking"?

You think it's possible your thinking is an illusion...

Do you think that your thinking it's possible your thinking is an illusion is an illusion?

Do you think that your thinking your thinking your thinking it's possible your thinking is an illusion is an illusion?

Do you...

:blink:

[MidnightSun]

If you cant prove that a thing is an illiusion then its not. If you prove that a thing is an illiusion, its an illiusion.

Nahh, sounds like crap.

[scameter]

How can that be? Even if your thinking is an illusion, there must be something to receive that illusion, and, indeed, recognize the possibility of it as an illusion. What else is this but "thinking"?

The spirit.

Do you think that your thinking it's possible your thinking is an illusion is an illusion?

Definitely. But it's also possible not.

[WanderingTaoist]

The spirit.

And what is spirit for you?

[scameter]

Life. Feeling, thinking, experience, knowledge, wisdom, death, birth, power, emotion, nature. Life.

[WanderingTaoist]

Then Life is? :)

[WanderingTaoist]

it depends on what the meaning of 'is' is - bill clinton

rotfl.... :lol:

Ontologists, rejoice!

[scameter]

Then Life is?

Is spirit yes. :)