Total Posts:13|Showing Posts:1-13
Jump to topic:

Perception and Empiricism

untitled_entity
Posts: 416
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2009 5:52:23 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Today, in my Theory of Knowledge class we were discussing perception and the importance of sense in determining knowledge. Among these topics was the idea that pain was created in the mind, as were color, sounds and smell.

Tonight's reading centered on philosopher "solutions" to these problems. I was wondering, since we seem to have so many differing opinions on this site on God and philosophy how you guys feel about the following question:

Can you prove that either you or God exists without appealing to any sensory evidence whatsoever, like Descartes thought? Even if you can, what can you deduce from these facts?
crackofdawn_Jr
Posts: 1,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2009 5:55:59 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/20/2009 5:52:23 PM, untitled_entity wrote:
Today, in my Theory of Knowledge class we were discussing perception and the importance of sense in determining knowledge. Among these topics was the idea that pain was created in the mind, as were color, sounds and smell.

Tonight's reading centered on philosopher "solutions" to these problems. I was wondering, since we seem to have so many differing opinions on this site on God and philosophy how you guys feel about the following question:

Can you prove that either you or God exists without appealing to any sensory evidence whatsoever, like Descartes thought? Even if you can, what can you deduce from these facts?

"I can think, therefore I am."

Because I know that I exist I exist. Even if the world is an illusion that means there is a reality where I exist because I am creating the illusion.
There are three types of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics"
-Mark Twain

"If at first you don't succeed, redefine success"

"Therefore love moderately. Long love doth so.
Too swift arrives as tardy as too slow."
- William Shakespeare

"There must be no majority decisions, but only responsible persons, and the word 'council' must be restored to its original meaning. Surely every man will have advisers by his side, but the decision will be made by one man."
- Adolf Hitler
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2009 6:49:44 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Well, to answer your question: "Can you prove that either you or God exists without appealing to any sensory evidence whatsoever, like Descartes thought? Even if you can, what can you deduce from these facts?"

The answer is no. A blind, deaf person with no sense of touch, smell, and taste would not be able to prove anything, much less think anything. The person is incapable of experience and incapable of being taught. Empircism wins, rationalism fails.

However, the question is a bit loaded. The debate between empircisim and rationalism is a bit more deep than that. "Rationalists claim that there are significant ways in which our concepts and knowledge are gained independently of sense experience. Empiricists claim that sense experience is the ultimate source of all our concepts and knowledge." [http://plato.stanford.edu...]

However, I prefer Kant's Transcendental idealism. Basically, it is.... Actually, I can't sum it up very good. And I have to do homework of my own, so I can't write for that long. Here is more on Transcendental idealism:
http://www.london-oratory.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

The Problem of Perception: http://plato.stanford.edu...
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2009 7:07:00 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Off the direct topic, onto your introduction:
If perception were reality, then reality ceases to exist when perception ceases to exist. Perception ceases to exist in death; therefore, so does reality.

Interesting set of thinking, but I like to just assume that reality is indeed what we are percieving with our senses. Sensory information is how we accumulate knowledge, and without knowledge, nothing can be derived. Most things we derive are in regard to the world we percieve, so the original assumption, valid or not, is a necessary leap to allow us to understand our universe.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2009 7:28:01 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/20/2009 5:55:59 PM, crackofdawn_Jr wrote:

"I can think, therefore I am."

Because I know that I exist I exist. Even if the world is an illusion that means there is a reality where I exist because I am creating the illusion.

She said BESIDES Descartes.
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2009 7:28:23 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
"I was wondering, since we seem to have so many differing opinions on this site on God and philosophy how you guys feel about the following question:"

Lol. You mean you have to answer that question for homework ; )
President of DDO
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2009 11:49:36 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/20/2009 5:52:23 PM, untitled_entity wrote:

Can you prove that either you or God exists without appealing to any sensory evidence whatsoever

It's an auto fail, since sensory data > perception > concepts > abstractions is necessary to understand the ideas and meanings inherent in: evidence, proof, exists, I etc.
untitled_entity
Posts: 416
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2009 3:13:00 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/20/2009 7:28:23 PM, theLwerd wrote:
"I was wondering, since we seem to have so many differing opinions on this site on God and philosophy how you guys feel about the following question:"

Lol. You mean you have to answer that question for homework ; )

Actually....no.
I had to answer the three subsequent ones, not the first one.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2009 7:52:04 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Sensory devices are the only means to which we could possibly examine or understand anything. A blind man cannot judge what colour a car is. A deaf man cannot judge what sound a bird makes. A blind, deaf man can do neither. If i burned out your eyes, shut your ears, clogged your nose, taped your mouth, and bound you up in a coffin, and placed an object outside the coffin, could you possibly know what it is? of course not.
Vi_Veri
Posts: 4,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2009 4:17:21 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/20/2009 5:52:23 PM, untitled_entity wrote:
Today, in my Theory of Knowledge class we were discussing perception and the importance of sense in determining knowledge. Among these topics was the idea that pain was created in the mind, as were color, sounds and smell.

Tonight's reading centered on philosopher "solutions" to these problems. I was wondering, since we seem to have so many differing opinions on this site on God and philosophy how you guys feel about the following question:

Can you prove that either you or God exists without appealing to any sensory evidence whatsoever, like Descartes thought? Even if you can, what can you deduce from these facts?

I'm taking the same class right now, actually. Epistemology.

She said "appeal" to any sensory evidence guys....

As you will probably learn later on in your class, even our senses are not sufficient enough to prove that you (or god for that matter- though god can not be proven to exist through empirical means) exists. Emperialism can't prove something without a doubt. Rationalism can prove quite a few things, though (like contradictions not being able to exist, etc).

And mind you, Descartes cogito ergo sum has quite the criticisms against it as well, though I tend to sympathize with it.

And yes, neuro-psychology proves that pain, color, scent, tastes etc are all hallucinations in the mind. They don't actually exist in reality.
I could give a f about no haters as long as my ishes love me.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2009 4:19:09 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/20/2009 6:49:44 PM, Nags wrote:
Well, to answer your question: "Can you prove that either you or God exists without appealing to any sensory evidence whatsoever, like Descartes thought? Even if you can, what can you deduce from these facts?"

The answer is no. A blind, deaf person with no sense of touch, smell, and taste would not be able to prove anything, much less think anything. The person is incapable of experience and incapable of being taught. Empircism wins, rationalism fails.

However, the question is a bit loaded. The debate between empircisim and rationalism is a bit more deep than that. "Rationalists claim that there are significant ways in which our concepts and knowledge are gained independently of sense experience. Empiricists claim that sense experience is the ultimate source of all our concepts and knowledge." [http://plato.stanford.edu...]

However, I prefer Kant's Transcendental idealism. Basically, it is.... Actually, I can't sum it up very good. And I have to do homework of my own, so I can't write for that long. Here is more on Transcendental idealism:
http://www.london-oratory.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

The Problem of Perception: http://plato.stanford.edu...

Empiricism is a bunch of crap.
President of DDO