Benny I think you are getting confused between how perfect our senses are and the validity of the senses. Senses do not have to be perfect to grasp reality. Because we cannot see a quantum event doesn't mean our senses are invalid or that the event did not take place. Because we see a pencil apparently bend in water, doesn't mean anything other than we are seeing the real effect of water on the transmission of light.
But to deny your senses you need to know they are valid. If you say "my senses are invalid" you rely on auditory input to recognise what you said (and that it was what you intended to say). If you write "my senses are not valid" you rely on sight and touch in the same way. We are justified in relying on sense perception axiomatically.
I seem unable to get you to answer that question, don't I?
But to deny your senses you need to know they are valid. If you say "my senses are invalid" you rely on auditory input to recognise what you said (and that it was what you intended to say). If you write "my senses are not valid" you rely on sight and touch in the same way. We are justified in relying on sense perception axiomatically.
I seem unable to get you to answer that question, don't I?
"I still say a church steeple with a lightning rod on top shows a lack of confidence"...Doug McLeod.
