If someone says: I have seen something that you will never see because, while it’s real, it’s not available to your sense perception organs, how can you respond?
Which question are you asking?
Not being available to your sense perception organs is considerably different from everyones sense perception organs being essentially similar.
If someone says: I have seen something that you will never see because, while it’s real, it’s not available to your sense perception organs, how can you respond?
You say: “Well I just think you’re wrong but the little green man sitting on my shoulder right now says you are a complete loon.”
You say: “Well I just think you’re wrong but the little green man sitting on my shoulder right now says you are a complete loon.”
Then how can you proof anything to someone if he can just say: “your senses are invalid, unlike mine”?
If someone says: I have seen something that you will never see because, while it’s real, it’s not available to your sense perception organs, how can you respond?
That while two different people may not be able to perceive the same thing in exactly the same way, the reality of the thing is not based on perception.
If you think you are seeing something that nobody else can see, and nobody else can touch, feel, hear or taste it either, then the most likely answer is that something between your sensory organs and your rational facility is altering your sense of perception. There are no contradictions, and since light must interact with something for that something to be seen, if you see something and it isn’t there, and it wasn’t an optical illusion, then your sense of sight is faulty.
For example - the right hemisphere of the brain, if stimulated magnetically, can trigger a mental sense of an other-worldly, comforting presence in the area that cannot be confirmed by any of the five senses. The sensation of the presence is not proof of existence of a presence, but a false sensation generated by the brain. (It also provides a much more simple explanation for the numerous ‘miraculous godly presences’ people have felt over the millennium than the idea of the existence of some being which contradicts reality)
Then how can you proof anything to someone if he can just say: “your senses are invalid, unlike mine”?
Ask them to prove their claim.
but a false sensation generated by the brain.
If a magnetic field stimulates the right hemisphere of the brain, how is this a false sensation generated by the brain? Is this not an effect ‘sensation of an other-worldly comforting presence’ of the magnetic stimulation?
I’m not seeing how this example ties in with the OP question.
If someone says: I have seen something that you will never see because, while it’s real, it’s not available to your sense perception organs, how can you respond?
Why would you respond to such a bizarre claim? Just because someone says “Martians are controlling our minds and we have to wear tin foil hats to block their rays”, you don’t have to persuade them that they are wrong. Rational people do not attempt to use logic to persuade insane people, and the man you are talking about is mentally ill.
Of course if a space alien arrives from the planet Kelgorn, and they happen to be able to see sounds, then I would simply reply “So what? I can hear them”.
If a magnetic field stimulates the right hemisphere of the brain, how is this a false sensation generated by the brain? Is this not an effect ‘sensation of an other-worldly comforting presence’ of the magnetic stimulation?
Thanks.
Correction: The sensation contradicts the other senses - the conclusion that something is in the room is a false interpretation of the sensation.
I’m not seeing how this example ties in with the OP question.
If you substitute “sees” in the OP with “experiences a sensation”, then the person with the contradictory sensation concludes that he or she can feel something others can’t, and ignores his own other senses which disagree with his “sixth sense”. The others are simply unable to sense the mystic presence, so they say, “I have sensed something that you will never sensed because, while it’s real, it’s not available to your sense perception organs.”
My example ties in to illustrate how the sensations we experience are not perfect, and thus when they contradict others, the option that our senses may be in error must be left open.
Perhaps I am stuck on ‘I have seen something that you will never see’ - assuming that the claim comes from someone who relied on his physical senses for the original observation.
Perhaps I am stuck on ‘I have seen something that you will never see’ - assuming that the claim comes from someone who relied on his physical senses for the original observation.
I consider the specific sense used unimportant. It’s the nature of the claim that matters.
If someone says: I have seen something that you will never see because, while it’s real, it’s not available to your sense perception organs, how can you respond?
Let me recast the question in a more concrete way. Someone claims to possess a sense mode that you do not have; on the basis of that new sense mode they claim to perceive things you do not. Should you believe them? The basic claim here is the possession of a new sense mode. What evidence do they present for its existence? Can they explain how it works? What physical basis does it have? Can the things they claim to perceive be integrated with the things you perceive with your senses, or do they contradict your perceptions? Etc.
If I’m blind, and you come to me and say you possess a sense mode – vision – that I don’t, why should I believe you? You can present lots of evidence in terms I can understand that vision exists. I can touch the sense organ from which vision arises. I can grasp the concept of ambient energy in the environment as similar to sound waves and heat, and vision can be explained as a response to a form of that ambient energy. You can use your vision to identify objects too far away to touch, describe them and I can validate some of their characteristics like shape using my own senses. That provides a solid basis for my accepting that vision is real, even though I don’t have it myself.
But if someone says they possess a new sense mode, but they can’t or won’t provide any evidence or explanation, then they’re just asserting a claim arbitrarily. Demand the proof.
1 Like
For example - the right hemisphere of the brain, if stimulated magnetically, can trigger a mental sense of an other-worldly, comforting presence in the area that cannot be confirmed by any of the five senses. The sensation of the presence is not proof of existence of a presence, but a false sensation generated by the brain.
I wouldn’t call it a ‘false sensation’. It’s an awareness of a magnetic field, in a very unusual form. One could imagine someone with sufficient knowledge of neurology and an awareness of the presence of an electromagnet though the standard senses concluding from his sense of ‘other-worldly comfort’ that the electromagnet has been turned on.
My example ties in to illustrate how the sensations we experience are not perfect, and thus when they contradict others, the option that our senses may be in error must be left open.
You lost me here. The validity of sense perception is axiomatic. To say that our senses “may be in error” is confusing the metaphysical and the man-made. In response to the OP, you most likely cant prove that everyones senses respond to stimuli in the same way, but it doesnt matter. When contemplating the relationship between sensory apparatus, and reality, as long as existence exists independent of consciousness (any consciousness), its the same reality being percieved no matter how the sensory apparatus happens to react to it.
j..
I wouldn’t call it a ‘false sensation’. It’s an awareness of a magnetic field, in a very unusual form. One could imagine someone with sufficient knowledge of neurology and an awareness of the presence of an electromagnet though the standard senses concluding from his sense of ‘other-worldly comfort’ that the electromagnet has been turned on.
The point is that the brain, on its own, can generate a registered sensation that contradicts our physical senses.
The magnetic field is only the stimuli to trigger the function of that portion of the brain. What the experiment showed was that about 80% of human brains have the innate ability to generate this false sensation.
The theory is that the sensation was an evolutionary defense mechanism to protect us from locking up in a panic when faced with an imminent threat. Probably it evolved as we were developing something beyond perceptual awareness, and thus became increasingly able to identify situations in which an end of being (death) was likely. The feeling of something mystical assuring us that everything would be ok would allow us to continue to act in self-preservation, improving our chance of survival. Since, as mammals, during infancy we get the sense of protection and comfort from our parents, the brain developing the ability to recreate that sense of protection and comfort from outside doesn’t seem that far fetched.
You lost me here. The validity of sense perception is axiomatic. To say that our senses “may be in error” is confusing the metaphysical and the man-made. In response to the OP, you most likely cant prove that everyones senses respond to stimuli in the same way, but it doesnt matter. When contemplating the relationship between sensory apparatus, and reality, as long as existence exists independent of consciousness (any consciousness), its the same reality being percieved no matter how the sensory apparatus happens to react to it.
j..
Ugh - semantics.
When I say our senses may be in error I mean the *interpretation* of our senses.
I damaged my thumb a few years ago with a table saw. The nerves in my thumb were frayed, and as the thumb healed, a piece of nerve tissue became trapped in the scar tissue, so there is now a spot on the inside of my thumb at the joint that, when lightly touched, feels as if I’m being tickled *under my thumbnail*, which is a full inch and 180 degrees away from the point of contact.
My senses tell me that the skin is being tickled. My nervous system identifies the sensation as being under the thumbnail. It is not. I must consciously remember that my senses are not accurate when it comes to where I am being touched. The sensation of touch is correct, but the interpretation of the sensation is not.
You lost me here. The validity of sense perception is axiomatic. To say that our senses “may be in error” is confusing the metaphysical and the man-made.
More precisely it is confusing percepts with perceptual judgments – the latter are conceptual identifications of what is given in perception. Since they’re conceptual, they’re volitional – and therefore fallible. But what would it mean for a sense perception (as distinct from a perceptual judgment) to be invalid? It would have to be an awareness of something other than reality. But there isn’t anything other than reality. There is nothing else to be an object of awareness.
Typically when people say the senses ‘may be in error’ they are referring to various illusions like the infamous bent stick in water. It looks bent, but it really isn’t, so our senses are in error. But this confuses the percept with the perceptual judgment. The percept is simply an awareness of a stick in water. The judgment is ‘that stick looks bent’. The judgment is wrong; the percept isn’t.
In response to the OP, you most likely can’t prove that everyone’s senses respond to stimuli in the same way, but it doesn’t matter.
In fact, I can prove that everyone’s senses don’t respond to stimuli in the same way. Hellen Keller lacked senses – vision and hearing – that I have. My visual system can distinguish between red and green; there are other people whose visual systems don’t. My visual system is nearsighted and can’t distinguish details beyond a certain distance which can be distinguished by my friend whose vision is 20/10. Dogs can hear pitches of sound that human beings cannot; bees can see wavelengths of light that humans cannot. Examples can be multiplied indefinitely. But, as JayR says, none of this matters, because all of these cases are still instances of awareness of reality in some form, and they’re all valid. Some are more useful than others – able to distinguish differences more precisely, or to pick up information in a more useful form – but they’re all equally valid in that they all have reality as their object.
The point is that the brain, on its own, can generate a registered sensation that contradicts our physical senses.
How does your example demonstrate this? The brain is responding to the presence of the magnetic field. So what? The brain, though the optic system, also responds to the presence of light waves. Why is one kind of response privileged over the other? It isn’t doing it “on it’s own”, it’s doing it in response to something else in reality. Our senses and nervous systems are physical systems. They exist in reality. That means they are subject to causal interactions beyond those of the standard ‘see, hear, touch, smell, taste’ variety, and some of those causal interactions will give rise to forms of awareness that may be pretty weird. So what?
When I say our senses may be in error I mean the *interpretation* of our senses.
But this is precisely the distinction that must not be blurred if the nature of sense perception is to be correctly understood. It isn’t a matter of ‘semantics’, it’s a matter of proper conceptualization of a complex phenomenon.
My senses tell me that the skin is being tickled. My nervous system identifies the sensation as being under the thumbnail. It is not. I must consciously remember that my senses are not accurate when it comes to where I am being touched. The sensation of touch is correct, but the interpretation of the sensation is not.
This is correct. In my terms, the perception is valid but in an unusual form, and you need to take account of the atypical nature of your perceptual system when forming judgments based on your tactile percepts. I would note the role of your other senses in identifying what is going on here. How do you know that you aren’t being touched under the thumbnail? Because you can see that you aren’t, and you know that your thumb was injured in the past, and that the injury had an effect on your thumb’s tactile sensing capabilities. Perceptual judgments involve an integration of information across sense modalities and with other conceptual knowledge.
How does your example demonstrate this? The brain is responding to the presence of the magnetic field. So what? The brain, though the optic system, also responds to the presence of light waves. Why is one kind of response privileged over the other? It isn’t doing it “on it’s own”, it’s doing it in response to something else in reality. Our senses and nervous systems are physical systems. They exist in reality. That means they are subject to causal interactions beyond those of the standard ‘see, hear, touch, smell, taste’ variety, and some of those causal interactions will give rise to forms of awareness that may be pretty weird. So what?
Well, the magnetic field was only a trigger for the brain’s ability to generate the sensation - but I see your point.