The senses are fallible, so how can anything be known?

[EphelDuath]

All information known to human beings comes through sensory perception. These, of course, are fallible; schizophrenics hear voices that don’t ‘exist’, for example.

So, how can we know that anything exists, if we cannot know anything beyond what we sense with our body? A practical person would say that it does not matter if the world exists or not, since if it did not, then this debate would be useless; but I am not looking for a reason to not doubt, I am looking for an answer to my curiosity.

Now, a possible rebuttal could be that the more people who perceive something, the more likely it is that their collective interpretations of their senses are accurate. By this, I mean that – for example – if you have ten witnesses to an event, it is easier to trust that this event happened than if there was only one witness. One schizophrenic person could imagine something, but it is a far cry to suggest that the Earth’s population of six billion are all schizophrenic themselves. But I do not find this refutation to be convincing. When somebody agrees with you or interacts with you, it could be the case that your mind is imagining the other person. How can you trust the reliability of the senses by arguing that there are other people, whom you yourself only know through your own sensory perceptions?

How would you respond to the question, that all knowledge is biased and unreliable on the grounds that the senses are imperfect?

 

[1holycatholic]

All information known to human beings comes through sensory perception. These, of course, are fallible; schizophrenics hear voices that don’t ‘exist’, for example.

So, how can we know that anything exists, if we cannot know anything beyond what we sense with our body? A practical person would say that it does not matter if the world exists or not, since if it did not, then this debate would be useless; but I am not looking for a reason to not doubt, I am looking for an answer to my curiosity.

Now, a possible rebuttal could be that the more people who perceive something, the more likely it is that their collective interpretations of their senses are accurate. By this, I mean that – for example – if you have ten witnesses to an event, it is easier to trust that this event happened than if there was only one witness. One schizophrenic person could imagine something, but it is a far cry to suggest that the Earth’s population of six billion are all schizophrenic themselves. But I do not find this refutation to be convincing. When somebody agrees with you or interacts with you, it could be the case that your mind is imagining the other person. How can you trust the reliability of the senses by arguing that there are other people, whom you yourself only know through your own sensory perceptions?

How would you respond to the question, that all knowledge is biased and unreliable on the grounds that the senses are imperfect?

Chicken and egg question:
Ontology or epistemology?
Many modern philosophers have dug themselves into an epistemic pit of confusion from which they cannot extricate themselves.

 

[EphelDuath]

Chicken and egg question:
Ontology or epistemology?
Many modern philosophers have dug themselves into an epistemic pit of confusion from which they cannot extricate themselves.

I’m not sure I follow. Are you agreeing with me?

 

[Snerticus]

I’m not sure I follow. Are you agreeing with me?

They’re saying it’s an old conundrum that’s never been solved.

 

[EphelDuath]

They’re saying it’s an old conundrum that’s never been solved.

Ah, yes. Well I’m curious if anybody has anything to say about it, then.

 

[Snerticus]

Ah, yes. Well I’m curious if anybody has anything to say about it, then.

Well, this is the philosophy section and it is a philosophical question…

I myself have wondered about that because I misinterpret what people say a lot. Then I wonder why I misinterpret and if it’s because I’m not percieving things the way the other person is, or some other reason.

If it’s because I percieve things differently, then who’s to say my senses percieve things correctly.

I guess I would like to hear what others have to say!

 

[1holycatholic]

I’m not sure I follow. Are you agreeing with me?

Without existence there is no knowledge.

Does this help?

 

[EphelDuath]

Without existence there is no knowledge.

Descartes’ famous “I think, therefore I am” is proof that we, ourselves exist; but just because we exist, doesn’t mean our senses are reliable. And if our senses are reliable, how can any measurement we make, be? And therefore, how can any knowledge be certain?

 

[Snerticus]

Descartes’ famous “I think, therefore I am” is proof that we, ourselves exist; but just because we exist, doesn’t mean our senses are reliable. And if our senses are reliable, how can any measurement we make, be? And therefore, how can any knowledge be certain?

I forgot that philosophy asks more questions than answers them!

 

[1holycatholic]

Descartes’ famous “I think, therefore I am” is proof that we, ourselves exist; but just because we exist, doesn’t mean our senses are reliable. And if our senses are reliable, how can any measurement we make, be? And therefore, how can any knowledge be certain?

Philosophically, Descartes is problematic. Descartes can only be sure the mind exists, but not that the body exists. Mind and body are separate disconnected things. Effectively you have no senses because the body is disconnected from the mind. His pineal gland solution to the problem is pseudoscience. The only way Descartes can jump from things existing only in the mind to things existing outside of the mind is rather convoluted. He offers proof of the existence of God with an a priori (ontological) proof. Since God exists and God can not deceive, he can be certain his sense perceptions must be true since his senses came from God.

 

[EphelDuath]

Philosophically, Descartes is problematic. Descartes can only be sure the mind exists, but not that the body exists. Mind and body are separate disconnected things. Effectively you have no senses because the body is disconnected from the mind. His pineal gland solution to the problem is pseudoscience.

His argument, I think, is that only the mind can be known to exist with certainty; in other words, our senses could be tricking us into believing that we have a body, when we’re just a brain in a septic tank (yes, a silly scenario, but I’m looking for conclusiveness).

Now, you say that his argument is pseudoscience. That is true, but we cannot assume that science is true, since we’re still stuck in the circle that nothing can be known except through the senses, and our senses are unfalsifiable. Science could also be wrong if we have misperceived some fundamental part of nature. (And again, I’m really not a solipsist, I’m only seeking some certainty to knowledge.)

The only way Descartes can jump from things existing only in the mind to things existing outside of the mind is rather convoluted. He offers proof of the existence of God with an a priori (ontological) proof. Since God exists and God can not deceive, he can be certain his sense perceptions must be true since his senses came from God.

I agree that it is a bit convoluted. His goal is to eliminate all uncertain knowledge, but his conclusions on metaphysics have a lot of unproven assumptions, like that perfection implies benevolence, or that God cannot deceive. Though to be fair, I don’t think he particularly cared about metaphysics; he was a scientist that didn’t want the Inquisition to bother him.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

All information known to human beings comes through sensory perception. These, of course, are fallible; schizophrenics hear voices that don’t ‘exist’, for example.

So, how can we know that anything exists, if we cannot know anything beyond what we sense with our body? A practical person would say that it does not matter if the world exists or not, since if it did not, then this debate would be useless; but I am not looking for a reason to not doubt, I am looking for an answer to my curiosity.

Now, a possible rebuttal could be that the more people who perceive something, the more likely it is that their collective interpretations of their senses are accurate. By this, I mean that – for example – if you have ten witnesses to an event, it is easier to trust that this event happened than if there was only one witness. One schizophrenic person could imagine something, but it is a far cry to suggest that the Earth’s population of six billion are all schizophrenic themselves. But I do not find this refutation to be convincing. When somebody agrees with you or interacts with you, it could be the case that your mind is imagining the other person. How can you trust the reliability of the senses by arguing that there are other people, whom you yourself only know through your own sensory perceptions?

How would you respond to the question, that all knowledge is biased and unreliable on the grounds that the senses are imperfect?

technically you cant prove the existence of anything that is not a currently occuring thought.

that doesnt mean that your wrong, only that there is no evidence as such, therefore

descartes cogito ergo sum.

though personally that only proves that current thought, so how bout cogito ergo cogito sum…

 

[EphelDuath]

technically you cant prove the existence of anything that is not a currently occuring thought.

Even then, I reserve skepticism. Why would something exist in reality, simply because we can conceive of it? Our imagining of something is only circumstantial evidence that it actually exists.

Now, one may argue that even if something only exists as an idea, it still “exists” because it is information floating in our brain; and our brain is a material object, so therefore, the idea exists in some form as matter. While that is an interesting idea, it does not solve the conundrum I face, which is that how we can know if something exists if the only evidence of its being is our perception of it.

Or, to make it simpler. We can pet an animal, and our body will perceive it as being a cat; but it might actually be a dog. So while the idea of a cat exists in our minds, the animal that “actually” exists could be a dog. How can we be sure that the animal is a cat, if we can only go by our senses?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Even then, I reserve skepticism. Why would something exist in reality, simply because we can conceive of it? Our imagining of something is only circumstantial evidence that it actually exists.

Now, one may argue that even if something only exists as an idea, it still “exists” because it is information floating in our brain; and our brain is a material object, so therefore, the idea exists in some form as matter. While that is an interesting idea, it does not solve the conundrum I face, which is that how we can know if something exists if the only evidence of its being is our perception of it.

Or, to make it simpler. We can pet an animal, and our body will perceive it as being a cat; but it might actually be a dog. So while the idea of a cat exists in our minds, the animal that “actually” exists could be a dog. How can we be sure that the animal is a cat, if we can only go by our senses?

im saying you cant, even descartes proof of self is actually only proof of that current thought. even then its only evidence of an observational act occuring, completely within ones own mind.

to be clear, if one cares to take it to the extreme, one cannot prove the existence of anything, except a cognitive observational act, to whic descartes assigned the value of I.

nothing else is proveable, and that only subjectively.

 

[EphelDuath]

to be clear, if one cares to take it to the extreme, one cannot prove the existence of anything, except a cognitive observational act, to whic descartes assigned the value of I.

I don’t want to come to this conclusion, though it seems inevitable until a solution is found. I firmly believe in the Catholic faith, but it would seem that no knowledge can be certain, and we have to take everything we know “on credit”, such as that we aren’t floating brains in a septic tank.

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

but it would seem that no knowledge can be certain, and we have to take everything we know “on credit”, such as that we aren’t floating brains in a septic tank.

If this is so then what are we to do with this statement:

All information known to human beings comes through sensory perception. These, of course, are fallible

If no knowledge is certain and we have to take everything on credit, can we be ‘certain’ that all information comes through sensory perception which is fallible?

God bless

 

[EphelDuath]

If no knowledge is certain and we have to take everything on credit, can we be ‘certain’ that all information comes through sensory perception which is fallible?

I suppose we can’t even be certain of that. If all information comes through the senses, then yes, even the idea that we perceive everything through the senses is but something that we understand only through our perception of the world.

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

I suppose we can’t even be certain of that. If all information comes through the senses, then yes, even the idea that we perceive everything through the senses is but something that we understand only through our perception of the world.

So we are left with what Chesterton referred to as the *ultimate * or complete skeptic. Someone who questions why anything should go right, even deduction and observation. Bad logic can be as good as good logic, since it all comes from the mind of an ape.

I am not too philosophical, but I am sure there has been an answer to all of this. I am not sure about the perceptions idea that you bring up and how these can be often misleading. If you find an article answering it I would appreciate it if you would share.

God bless

 

[MegaTherion]

it would seem that no knowledge can be certain, and we have to take everything we know “on credit”, such as that we aren’t floating brains in a septic tank.

Of course it could be possible that we’re all brains in a vat, or it could be possible that we’re all trapped in the matrix, or it could be possible that trans-dimensional pixies are painting the background so that reality is really just their artwork, or it could be possible that my life is the dream of a purple unicorn on Planet X, and my life will end when that purple unicorn wakes up.

Any of that could be true.

The questions before us are: are any of those ideas likely to be true and on what evidence do we base our acceptance of them?

There is nothing that indicates that I’m a brain in a vat or any of the above. Even if I were, the illusion I’m immersed in is so consistent and real that for all intents and purposes, I can treat it as real.

There is no good evidence or any good reason at all to accept the claim that I’m a brain in a vat.

It’s true that we probably can’t know anything 100% for certain. And it’s true that our senses are fallible. But that doesn’t mean that we can’t know anything at all to a fair degree of certainty. That would be just silly.

For one thing, our senses independently confirm each other. When I look at my cup, for example, I’m not just seeing it. I can touch it, taste it, hear the sound it makes, and smell its contents. Over time, from this data confirmed from multiple senses at once and the use of my reason, I can formulate a relatively accurate picture of the world around me (which is at least good enough to help me survive).

Further, we have independent confirmation from other people. I know my cup is real because literally anyone can look at my cup and come to the same conclusion: my cup exists.

And even though our senses are fallible, we can check them against independently verifiable data to make sure that what we’re perceiving exists for everybody.

This is called evidence.

By means of evidence, we can determine what is most likely to be true.

Hope that helps. As entertaining as pointless speculations like those found in this thread are, there comes a time when we must set aside our copies of the Matrix and our silly ideas like, “We can’t know anything, man, so it’s, like…all belief…my ideas are just as valid as your ideas…man…”

 

[EphelDuath]

Of course it could be possible that we’re all brains in a vat, or it could be possible that we’re all trapped in the matrix, or it could be possible that trans-dimensional pixies are painting the background so that reality is really just their artwork, or it could be possible that my life is the dream of a purple unicorn on Planet X, and my life will end when that purple unicorn wakes up.

I am not arguing that all knowledge is untrue, only that it is uncertain. As I said, a practical person would disregard this debate as being pointless, but I seek an answer to curiosity.

The questions before us are: are any of those ideas likely to be true and on what evidence do we base our acceptance of them?

Well, that is the problem. As I see it, there is nothing to say if it is likely to be true, since our senses are inherently unreliable.

Even if I were, the illusion I’m immersed in is so consistent and real that for all intents and purposes, I can treat it as real.

This is true: but is there any way to prove that the illusion is reality, and that even if our senses are imperfect, they are at least accurate?

For one thing, our senses independently confirm each other. When I look at my cup, for example, I’m not just seeing it. I can touch it, taste it, hear the sound it makes, and smell its contents. Over time, from this data confirmed from multiple senses at once and the use of my reason, I can formulate a relatively accurate picture of the world around me (which is at least good enough to help me survive).

A deeply insane person can “see”, “taste”, “hear”, “feel” a cup that doesn’t actually exist. His mind is so distorted that his senses no longer report accurate information. Now, we don’t have to all be insane for this argument to be applicable in a more general way; gravity is something that we cannot detect with the senses, but likely exists. However, the only way we know of gravity is by doing experiments on the world; and since the data we collect through these experiments are inherently tied to our senses (i.e., if we drop a ball and time how fast it drops, we are using our sight to see when the ball hits the floor), how can we know that these conclusions are independently true?

Further, we have independent confirmation from other people. I know my cup is real because literally anyone can look at my cup and come to the same conclusion: my cup exists.

Yes, but in my first problem, I indicated my skepticism of this rebuttal. If somebody else tells us that they see the cup, then we are using our senses to hear what the other person is telling us. It is possible that this other person does not actually exist, and the only reason we think it is so is because of flawed perceptions.

Again, I agree that this is obviously not the case. But it would seem that knowledge is uncertain, and we have to, as you say, live our lives under the assumption that our senses are at least somewhat reliable. All I am seeking to do is eliminate the assumption.