Seriously...I might If you paid me sufficiently.
A classic paper in psychology (Green and Swets Signal Detection Theory) showed that perception could be manipulated by monetary pay-offs,
Thank you for proving my point? "How did I prove your point" you may ask."
I'm glad you asked. I don't need to pay you to eat anything, but more on that scenario later.
Your answer is an admission that our sense of smell is telling us that the meat is rancid and we both understand the ramifications: the probable outcomes, even to some degree that we can calculate some possible results.
Nor would you base, on your sense of sight, would you let a total bind person chauffeur you around.
Now if one is crazy, perhaps suffering some type dementia , some form of mental illness or just doesn't care for reasons what so ever, then perhaps the person would eat that rancid meat or let a blind person drive them around.
Perhaps that person is indigent and is scrapping the garbage cans for food and comes across the rancid meat and eats it?
Yes, that would be his reality, But that is not a reality based on empiricism. That type of reality and fact is not based on one senses informing him about the environs in which he inhabits.
There is no argument that perception can be altered by many means, not just by money.That in and of itself belies the fact that what is true and what is not.
dependent on Human thought...something I said to you earlier.
Interpreting, assessing and analyzings the stimuli received from our senses are different brain functions.
Empiricism will allow both of us to hear the same piece of music. depending on how brains in their different hemispheres are developed we will be more or less keen to that music. the empiricist reality is that we hear the noise: sound. Whether we both like it is a different reality. I may like jazz you may like rock.