RE: Are We Living In God's "Matrix"?
September 12, 2014 at 10:26 am
(This post was last modified: September 12, 2014 at 10:28 am by sswhateverlove.)
(September 12, 2014 at 9:43 am)Dissily Mordentroge Wrote:(September 11, 2014 at 12:14 pm)sswhateverlove Wrote: According to public opinion, these receptors tell us the truth about what “is”. Unfortunately (brace yourself), there is no evidence that the mechanisms convey to us anything that resembles what actually “is”.How can you determine there's no evidence these mechanisms convey to us anything that resembles what actually is when accetance of such assertions you can have no grasp of what 'is' in the first place?
To know your perceptions aren't reflecting something truthfully you have to know already what that 'something' is anyway.
Word salad posing as philosophy.
Things are taken as "givens" to enable us to move on to other ideas. The claim that vibrating waves and particles are received by receptors and interpreted as an experience does nothing to confirm the perceived experience "is" what actually "is". Hence the title of the thread referring to the thought experiment of the "Matrix".
(September 12, 2014 at 10:04 am)Dissily Mordentroge Wrote:(September 12, 2014 at 9:50 am)bennyboy Wrote: We know for a 100% fact that our senses don't represent reality truthfully. That's what illusions demonstrate, and the effect is so strong that you cannot consciously compensate for it.If our species was operating on a purely sensory mode what you assert would be 100% true. However, we have since The Enlightenment had the use of empirical science to validate or invalidate sensory impressions.
We do we really, REALLY know? That we have experiences, and that there are commonalities among them that allow us to see meaning
in repeated patterns.
Or, as as one of the few sensible things Ayn Rand said. 'If you get the way you classify concepts wrong it won't just be a in interesting philosopical game you're playing, it could kill you"
We use empirical science via the use of our senses to validate or invalidate sensory impression. See the paradox.