QUESTION

[JesusLives]

Yes and no..... Yes we can trust our senses at least in the fire/hot area as if we reach out and touch it we will get burned so you learn not to stick your hand in the fire.

However, there is a place over in Lake Wales Florida that if you put your car in neutral at a certain point on the hill and let it roll it appears to be rolling up hill which it really isn't but what you are seeing is fooling you into thinking you are rolling up hill.....been there done that....

So my answer is yes and no depending on the circumstances of what you are doing at the time.... Which the Bible directs us to study to truly understand the truth.

 

[oldhermit]

This is delving far into the realm of philosophy... or at least, could. You seem to be postulating a discrepancy between the universe as actuality ("the real world") and the universe as we sense it ("the perceived world"). Of course there is a difference, but we accept that our conscious "image" of the real world is an adequate and acceptably-truthful representation.

There may be such a discrepancy between real and perceived, but at its core we cannot know about it. Therefore, in terms of our experience, the real world is the same as the perceived world. There are certainly aspects of the real world about which we do not yet know, for our investigation of it has not yet revealed those aspects. However, given that we can reasonably expect that the world on one day will be substantially and reliably similar to that of the day previous, we can go about our business without worrying about it.

The question is the root of observational science. If we can test a hypothesis about the real world repeatedly and come up with the same results, we can continue on as though that hypothesis is truth. We use our five senses to investigate the real world, and can rely on the results that they deliver. Of course there are situations wherein we expect certain results which do not occur, but that is more likely due to inadequate understanding or inadequate information rather than unreliability of our senses. They can be tricked, and we know that. Further, we generally have a good idea of the ways in which they can be tricked, so we can work around those things.

Conclusion: the real world, while incompletely understood, can be reliably and truthfully understood through our senses. I believe that God designed us this way, to function in the world by interacting with it through our senses.

Very well said. Thank you. Yes, we routinely rely on our senses and our dependence upon observable regularities to function in a multidimensional world of determined relations. We rely every day upon this representational form of the universe to give us accurate information about the world in which we live. For the most part, our dependency upon this accuracy serves us well. It gives us the ability to recognize and store the information of our experiences. We have been created with the ability to store information about how to live within the limitations of these determined relations based on the information provided by these representations. We know for example that we cannot step off a hundred foot cliff and expect a favorable outcome. We know that when we stick our hand in the fire that the hand will be burned. We typically learn very early in life that there is a determined relation between thermal radiation an human tissue that is painfully destructive. Our ability to survive in the natural world is dependent upon how well we trust its representational form because these forms consistently tell us certain truths about these things; but, only up to a point.

 

[Depleted]

What do you think our five senses tell us about the true nature of reality? Can we depend on our senses to tell all the truth about reality? Let me hear what you think about this?

In many ways, we have to trust our senses. In other ways, I've learned not to trust them.

I'm cockeyed. I can see out both eyes, but neither eye is facing the same way unless I put in concerted effort. And, if I do that, I see double first, so not good to do that at certain points. And yet, I drive. Driving a potential killing-machine is about as real as reality gets. You absolutely need to know how far ahead that red light is, because cross traffic and pedestrians are counting on you to know that. But I don't know from looking at the light. Little depth perception. (I have some, but not nearly as much as most people have, because that requires both eyes looking together.) So I have to judge it in other ways -- shadows cast, lines in the road, cars parked on the sides of the street, how big things are when I'm standing next to them, and other things I no longer know I'm noticing. You need me to do all that calculating as I'm using my sense of sight because your life might depend on it.

Good news. I've landed every stop light just right so far. So, my sense of sight works fine, if not a little irregular. It is reality.

It also has to be corrected every year or so by glasses now that I'm getting older.

But I also know my sense of smell is going. Sometimes I have to sniff a flower 2-3 times before smelling its scent. And I'm talking about flowers that perfume big time, like roses, moonflowers, and passion flowers. They smell good whether I can smell them or not, but I can't always smell them anymore.

Ultimately though, Romans 1 tells us that through nature itself God proves himself, so we are left without excuse. Seems to me that tells us we should count on our senses for him at least that often. Enjoy him by counting on them more. Are they reality though? Since a passion flower doesn't always give me a scent when I know it has a beautiful scent all the time -- it's hit or miss with me.

 

[sevenseas]

what?

you never saw the movie 'the 6th sense?'

actually, many do have a 6th sense. a believer has the Holy Spirit inside. we are more than 5 senses

 

[Depleted]

Ok, but do you believe that human senses that God has given us is able to allow us to determine the full scope of reality about the natural world?

A dog can smell better than a human can. Fish and insects see differently than us. Birds seem to be able to pick up something that tells them when to migrate north or south. And the sky sure looks blue to me, although if you get a jar of sky it is no longer blue. So this tells me human sense isn't the same as "perfect sense."

 

[Depleted]

We do not know Christ after the rudments of this world, the five sences. We walk by faith,the unseen it reveals the spiritual matters supernaturally (without nature).

I can argue that one with you through Rom. 1:18-21.

 

[Depleted]

You are still not understanding what I am asking. What I want to know is, how do we know that we can trust our five sense to tell us certain truths about the world around us? Let me give you an example? When you are looking at any object, how do know that your eyes are telling you the truth about what you are seeing? How do you know fire is hot?

My blister!

 

[oldhermit]

much of our knowledge about the universe and reality is reached by inference rather than by direct observation - in fact, all our own bodily senses, if we consider the brain to be the seat of our own consciousness, are experienced by inference within the brain. the brain itself receives information from neural networks and from such organs as the ears and eyes, which is transmitted by synaptical discharges. what we actually perceive, then, is a field of electrical impulses and potential voltages. we interpret this field as sensations such as touch and smell, but this is inference, and it is well-documented that the brain itself can be 'fooled' into sensing things that the sensory organs themselves are not experiencing.

This is a very good observation. Concrete objects that exist in three dimensional time and spaces are converted into abstract forms within the brain. What we encounter is not the concrete object itself but an abstract representation of that object. We know for example that the tree is real because light rays projected off the object create an exact image of that object in our sensorium. This icon is then projected onto the cerebral cortex and interpreted by the brain. We then link that abstraction in the brain to the object. We are able to determine based past encounters with trees that the icon is in general representative of all other trees. These representations can be generally relied upon to tell us certain truths about our world. For example, we are able to extrapolate from the icon in our brain certain descriptive information about the object. We know immediately based on faith that the tree is actually there in a specific location in time and space and that we can experience the tree with our five senses. We are also able to distinguish this tree from all other objects as a tree. We are able to appreciate the aesthetic attributes of the tree. We know that the tree has a particular shape, color, and smell, and that it is of a particular variety. We are able to associate the object in a three dimensional world in relation to all other objects around it. We are able to determine if the tree is large or small, near or far away. We are able to separate this tree from all subsequent experiences with trees.

 

[Depleted]

senses can easily be fooled - and there are many examples of substances, forces and events that take place which cannot be perceived by human senses alone. additionally there is an abundance of evidence suggesting that substances, forces and events occur which cannot be currently observed even by specialized measuring devices.

much of our knowledge about the universe and reality is reached by inference rather than by direct observation - in fact, all our own bodily senses, if we consider the brain to be the seat of our own consciousness, are experienced by inference within the brain. the brain itself receives information from neural networks and from such organs as the ears and eyes, which is transmitted by synaptical discharges. what we actually perceive, then, is a field of electrical impulses and potential voltages. we interpret this field as sensations such as touch and smell, but this is inference, and it is well-documented that the brain itself can be 'fooled' into sensing things that the sensory organs themselves are not experiencing.

if the brain, essentially a measuring device, can be mistaken about reality, how much more the intellect, which operates on inference from a variety of measurements?

BUT we have to get some things right or we'd never survive. And we can trust enough when we get stuff right that we can also trust others to get it right.

When I use to debate nonbelievers about God, one of the common excuses they'd hit me with is "How can you trust that those men got what God said right?" My answer was, "How do you trust your car's manual?" Even fallible Man is able to get some things right and we all grow to know when it is right.

 

[Depleted]

Thank you. That is what I am looking for. So, how do we know that we can trust our senses to tell us certain truths?

Because truth is provable.

 

[oldhermit]

Because truth is provable.

The method for determining the truth of these things is our dependency upon observable regularities; For example, When I throw a rock in the air, I know that the rock will fall back to the earth. How do I know this? Because it always has and I know there is a determined relation between that rock, force, and gravity; but, what if one time it does not come down? What does this say about the reliability of so called "laws of nature?"

 

[Depleted]

OUTSTANDING! This is what I want to hear. The natural world is accessible to us strictly based on representations. This is how God has created us. This is how we are designed to function. We are not able to have direct contact with material objects except through the sensorium. Our sensory abilities can be blocked in such a way that we lose all perception of concrete objects. If we are unable to experience an object through our senses, for us this object ceases to exist. This does not mean that the object vanishes from material existence or that it never really existed to begin with. It simply means that we cannot have direct contact with it. Since we have no actual direct contact with the world, we must learn to rely upon the information transmitted to us in the form of representations. We rely upon these abstract representations to convey accurate information to us about our world.

So, are you saying if Helen Keller became literally numb and lost her sense of taste and smell, then the universe disappears? Or she ceases to be? I will give you she would have lost two of three skills much needed to walk, (sight and feeling), but if she could walk, when she hit a wall, she'd know it, even if she couldn't feel it.

 

[Dino246]

A dog can smell better than a human can. Fish and insects see differently than us. Birds seem to be able to pick up something that tells them when to migrate north or south. And the sky sure looks blue to me, although if you get a jar of sky it is no longer blue. So this tells me human sense isn't the same as "perfect sense."

I checked both Amazon and eBay. "Jar of Sky" is clearly unavailable. "Jars of Clay" is the closest analogue, and some mighty fine music....

 

[Dino246]

what?

you never saw the movie 'the 6th sense?'

actually, many do have a 6th sense. a believer has the Holy Spirit inside. we are more than 5 senses

Those who get letters behind their names for studying (speculating on?) such things presently suggest we have as many as 33 different senses. (source: How many senses do humans have?)

 

[oldhermit]

So, are you saying if Helen Keller became literally numb and lost her sense of taste and smell, then the universe disappears? Or she ceases to be? I will give you she would have lost two of three skills much needed to walk, (sight and feeling), but if she could walk, when she hit a wall, she'd know it, even if she couldn't feel it.

No, this does not mean that the object vanishes from material existence or that it never really existed to begin with. It simply means that we cannot have direct contact with it through those senses. Helen Keller still had the use of touch, smell, and taste that give her limited access to her world.

 

[bluto]

Perhaps I am not being clear about what I am looking for. What I want to know is can you explain the relationship between the universe as actuality and the representative form of the universe in the consciousness? Can we know the truth about our world by our experiences within it?

Absolutely! In fact I'll even go one better. For example, I know for a fact that when I pray and get answered prayer whether it is yes or no that "reality" proves God is right. And it does not necessarily have to be about prayer. Reality proves God is right or should I say always right by looking at what's happening in the world from what God says in His Word.

A good example (if you notice) is how God has proven Trump to be right on everything he does because God has caused everything to turn out wrong the liberals throw at him. The liberals mean it for bad and God turns it into good, that's reality. Does that make sense?

IN GOD THE SON,
bluto

 

[Depleted]

Very well said. Thank you. Yes, we routinely rely on our senses and our dependence upon observable regularities to function in a multidimensional world of determined relations.We rely every day upon this representational form of the universe to give us accurate information about the world in which we live. For the most part, our dependency upon this accuracy serves us well. It gives us the ability to recognize and store the information of our experiences. We have been created with the ability to store information about how to live within the limitations of these determined relations based on the information provided by these representations. We know for example that we cannot step off a hundred foot cliff and expect a favorable outcome. We know that when we stick our hand in the fire that the hand will be burned. We typically learn very early in life that there is a determined relation between thermal radiation an human tissue that is painfully destructive. Our ability to survive in the natural world is dependent upon how well we trust its representational form because these forms consistently tell us certain truths about these things; but, only up to a point.

I disagree that it is a "representational form of the universe." My dollhouse is a representational form of a house. It is not a house. This universe isn't a dollhouse. It's a universe. Simply because I can't soak in dolphin-like sonar, echo-location like a bat, smellovision like a dog, (and thank you, Lord, for that one! lol), doesn't make me not part of the universe. Nor does it make the dolphin, bat or dog less a part of the universe. The universe is all we perceive of the universe. What's missing is we don't perceive it all. That doesn't make it "representational." It makes us lacking in all skill sets and all knowledge of what God has created.

Nothing abstract in it. It is what it appears to be. It is just a whole lot more than what we sense in it.

When I was a kid, I learned about the atom and I learned nothing is solid. Everything is just a bunch of atoms floating around. I spent a week afraid to go into buildings, sit on chairs, or even to walk for fear I'd fall through or what I thought was there really wasn't there. I'm 99.999% sure there really are atoms making all this stuff, however I am now 100% sure all this stuff really is. Really is -- not represenationally nor abstractly.

This feels like you're taking me back to not trust in walking on something.

 

[oldhermit]

I disagree that it is a "representational form of the universe." My dollhouse is a representational form of a house. It is not a house. This universe isn't a dollhouse. It's a universe. Simply because I can't soak in dolphin-like sonar, echo-location like a bat, smellovision like a dog, (and thank you, Lord, for that one! lol), doesn't make me not part of the universe. Nor does it make the dolphin, bat or dog less a part of the universe. The universe is all we perceive of the universe. What's missing is we don't perceive it all. That doesn't make it "representational." It makes us lacking in all skill sets and all knowledge of what God has created.

Nothing abstract in it. It is what it appears to be. It is just a whole lot more than what we sense in it.

When I was a kid, I learned about the atom and I learned nothing is solid. Everything is just a bunch of atoms floating around. I spent a week afraid to go into buildings, sit on chairs, or even to walk for fear I'd fall through or what I thought was there really wasn't there. I'm 99.999% sure there really are atoms making all this stuff, however I am now 100% sure all this stuff really is. Really is -- not represenationally nor abstractly.

This feels like you're taking me back to not trust in walking on something.

I think perhaps you are misunderstanding what I mean by representational form. I am not suggesting that the universe only exist as an abstract. What I am saying is the we only have access to the universe through representations.

 

[oldhermit]

What does does scripture tell us about the reliability of so called "laws of nature?"

 

[Depleted]

The method for determining the truth of these things is our dependency upon observable regularities; For example, When I throw a rock in the air, I know that the rock will fall back to the earth. How do I know this? Because it always has and I know there is a determined relation between that rock, force, and gravity; but, what if one time it does not come down? What does this say about the reliability of so called "laws of nature?"

Gravity has already been proven to be different. On earth, if you drop a pound of lead at the same time you drop a pound of Styrofoam, both objects will hit the ground at the same time and at the same speed. Drop those two things on the moon, and the speed slows down. You can't drop them in space. You can let go, but they won't drop. So gravity is either in effect or not in effect depending on where you are, but "Law of Gravity" is consistent according to location.

If you throw a rock and it doesn't fall? I have two reactions. First, I'm going to check for hidden strings or any signs it's a trick. If not that, then the obvious question is, "Why are you doing that, Lord?"