40
   

How can we be sure?

 
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Mon 22 Aug, 2011 02:24 pm
@north,
...yes, it must correspond to the wave length and still he is right and you are wrong...note that the colour you see must first be processed by you central nervous system, thus the information it produces although corresponding to such wave length it is not equal in structure to the input information you received from it...
(rather the interacting result of it and the specifics of your brain processes)
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Mon 22 Aug, 2011 02:32 pm
@north,
north wrote:
both the wave lengths of light and sound are there regardless if any living detects them

How do you know that?
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Mon 22 Aug, 2011 02:36 pm
@joefromchicago,
...he cannot...but he can at the very least assume an objective external partial cause to the phenomena, which in conjunction with its cognitive processes is assumed to be colour...for the sake of simplicity he assumed it is wave lenghts once we seem to have good reason to believe so...
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Mon 22 Aug, 2011 02:41 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
...it would be far more interesting that after you posed him such question you similarly would care enough to enlighten him on why he is wrong in promptly assuming it as a fact...
0 Replies
 
north
 
  1  
Mon 22 Aug, 2011 02:46 pm
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:

north wrote:
both the wave lengths of light and sound are there regardless if any living detects them

How do you know that?


because all living things respond to their enviroment and the enviroment has both light and sound

hence the evolution of the senses that detect both light and sound
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Mon 22 Aug, 2011 02:50 pm
@north,
...hell north you are not helping nor you seem to be reading...who´s to say environment is what you think it is ?
...if he wanted he even could be arguing that all of your memory´s and perceptions were implanted by the Spaghetti Monster in your head 1 minute ago...
north
 
  1  
Mon 22 Aug, 2011 02:54 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:

...hell north you are not helping nor you seem to be reading...who´s to say environment is what you think it is ?
...if he wanted he even could be arguing that all of your memory´s and perceptions were implanted by the Spaghetti Monster in your head 1 minute ago...


oh please

so are you say or suggesting that the enviroment is not the stimulas for the evolution of our senses , even in plants , let alone the animal world ?

joefromchicago
 
  2  
Mon 22 Aug, 2011 02:56 pm
@north,
north wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:

north wrote:
both the wave lengths of light and sound are there regardless if any living detects them

How do you know that?


because all living things respond to their enviroment and the enviroment has both light and sound

How do you know that?

Look, I'll make this easy. You know that inductively, just the same as you know inductively that there are wave lengths of light and sound. Induction, however, cannot guarantee that what we "know" today will be true tomorrow. That's what Hume taught us nearly 300 years ago. Consequently, what you "know" about light and sound are just educated guesses. Probably very good guesses, but guesses nevertheless. To say that we "know" something inductively, then, is to say that we're confident of something to a very high degree. I think that was wandeljw's point a few pages back.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Mon 22 Aug, 2011 02:58 pm
@joefromchicago,
...thank you for clarifying Joe !
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Mon 22 Aug, 2011 03:00 pm
@north,
...I am not suggesting either way I was just explaining to you you have no way to be sure...Joe just did explain to you why it is the case...
north
 
  1  
Mon 22 Aug, 2011 03:00 pm
@joefromchicago,

north wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:

north wrote:
both the wave lengths of light and sound are there regardless if any living detects them

How do you know that?


because all living things respond to their enviroment and the enviroment has both light and sound

How do you know that?

Quote:
Look, I'll make this easy. You know that inductively, just the same as you know inductively that there are wave lengths of light and sound. Induction, however, cannot guarantee that what we "know" today will be true tomorrow. That's what Hume taught us nearly 300 years ago. Consequently, what you "know" about light and sound are just educated guesses. Probably very good guesses, but guesses nevertheless. To say that we "know" something inductively, then, is to say that we're confident of something to a very high degree. I think that was wandeljw's point a few pages back.


so sound and light all of a sudden become non existent ? and don't stimulate our senses

nonsense

joefromchicago
 
  1  
Mon 22 Aug, 2011 03:03 pm
@north,
north wrote:
so sound and light all of a sudden become non existent ? and don't stimulate our senses

How could they stimulate our senses if no one's around to sense them?
north
 
  1  
Mon 22 Aug, 2011 03:07 pm
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:

north wrote:
so sound and light all of a sudden become non existent ? and don't stimulate our senses

How could they stimulate our senses if no one's around to sense them?


the evolution of the living being

alge senses light

Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Mon 22 Aug, 2011 03:15 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
...precisely because it is the case that we cannot know for sure my approach on this subject is entirely different...if nothing else all phenomena's are at least true experiences for what they are ! it can be said then that Objectivity then shifts for the fact, as a phenomenal true fact in the subject itself...no matter if it is the product of cause or correlation if it has an internal or external origin...
...but if it is the case that there are causes and effects all of them are justified in the same reason...and the possibility of communication, of no transcendence in between phenomena's themselves provides a sufficiently good justification to believe it is the case...
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Mon 22 Aug, 2011 03:19 pm
@north,
...who´s to say that the evolution of living beings is not a construction in a virtual world planned by the FSM and directly linked into your eyes and hears or skin ? or even better directly to your brain, eh ? (mind I am not saying I believe it is the case I am just saying that you have no way of knowing and that it might be the case)

...if you are really interested on the subject read something on the induction problem and then come back to debate some more...
0 Replies
 
north
 
  1  
Mon 22 Aug, 2011 03:29 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:

...precisely because it is the case that we cannot know for sure my approach on this subject is entirely different...if nothing else all phenomena's are at least true experiences for what they are ! it can be said then that Objectivity then shifts for the fact, as a phenomenal true fact in the subject itself...no matter if it is the product of cause or correlation if it has an internal or external origin...
...but if it is the case that there are causes and effects all of them are justified in the same reason...and the possibility of communication, of no transcendence in between phenomena's themselves provides a sufficiently good justification to believe it is the case...


I've read this over and over again but I cannot grasp what your trying to say

what is your " inotherwords " say ?
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Mon 22 Aug, 2011 03:35 pm
@north,
what I mean is that if you cannot know for sure what is cause of what, if you let CAUSES to fall down because you have no way of telling with certainty, there is at least one thing it can be said to be true...the EXPERIENCE itself which you experience ! ...and even the experience of "you"...
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Mon 22 Aug, 2011 03:54 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
...again, what I ultimately mean is that you have in theory many forms to try and justify a phenomena although not way of knowing if any of them is justified to be the case...however the experience itself for what it is and as it is, be it in the experiencer/subject, or in itself, with the experiencer, is true for what it is !
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Mon 22 Aug, 2011 04:03 pm
@north,
north wrote:
alge senses light

How do you know that?
0 Replies
 
north
 
  1  
Mon 22 Aug, 2011 04:08 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:

what I mean is that if you cannot know for sure what is cause of what, if you let CAUSES to fall down because you have no way of telling with certainty, there is at least one thing it can be said to be true...the EXPERIENCE itself which you experience ! ...and even the experience of "you"...


I understand then what you are saying

but at the sametime I disagree

we tend to think of being sure as a Human construct , meaning that if were not involved or can not observe this or that then we question the existence of things , Natural enough but not good enough


we Humans have to understand that things go on whether we exist or not

this we can be sure of

for if not then we become intangled in a confusing thought process of this thread , that makes us fragile in the understanding of what is going on outside of us

inotherwords for us to be here in the first place means that certain things came together to allow us and the many plant and animal life forms to exist

we KNOW THAT because they do , astrophysics of our solar system

from nuclear to plant life

we can be sure of all of it , because it is right under our nose , literally



that makes us fragile in the understanding of what is going on outside of us
 

Related Topics

Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.08 seconds on 11/23/2024 at 09:41:36