Deceptive Senses

[lilwilly]

The skeptic that maintains that we entirely cannot trust our senses and that they are illusionary and counterfeit falls into a logical error. We should ask the skeptic how is it he imputes the quality of being counterfeit or being illusionary to the senses when, apparently, all our senses are indeed illusionary. For illusionary to have any meaning

Comments

weeee argument

[ocswing]

For once I don't agree with you.. wait I never do. Anyway, it is not a logical error for a skeptic to say that our senses are illusionary. It is simply a correct sentiment stated incorrectly. Mainly, the way in which are senses work, your argument just doesn't match up. Example is that our senses react the same way to any stimuli and do not act in any dual manner, so there can be no comparison between a "genuine" sense and an "illusionary" sense. What the skeptic really means to say is that our senses are in question because they are simply electrical synapses that are interpreted by the brain. We assume that the connection between, say a table, and the brain recognizing it is a table, is instantaneous. In fact there are too many links between the two for the result to not be circumpsect, including the fact that the brain is not an impartial observer.

Re: weeee argument

[lilwilly]

Anyway, it is not a logical error for a skeptic to say that our senses are illusionary. It is simply a correct sentiment stated incorrectly.

Okay, well, first off it is a logical error if skepticism is taken the way I meant it. I should have made it more clear. By "skepticism" I was referring to the outright skepticism of Parmenides, Zeno, Descartes, and other out-and-out rationalists that maintained that only reason can know anything of the truth and that adherence to empirical knowledge leads to paradox, folly, and falsehood. In fact, Zeno went so far as to demonstrate that motion and the plurality of reality were logically impossible and therefore we cannot trust our senses for they display these falsehoods of motion and division to us. Descartes believed that a deceitful demon was presenting to his perception nothing but lies and illusions.

Also...

Example is that our senses react the same way to any stimuli and do not act in any dual mannerHow is this known? Through the senses, no? So by introducing this empirical evidence you

Re: weeee argument

[ocswing]

weeee, I win! You and I always never come to a clear understanding what you are arguing. And yes, I was not advocating skepticism, but rational skepticism still has valid points. Radical anything is dumb :\