The third and final challenge consisted of tasting the yoghurts again, but this time by being blindfolded and blocking our noses. This meant that we were only allowed to use the sense of taste.
This time, every single student guessed the flavours correctly apart from one student. This experiment showed us that focusing on one sense might be more reliable than relying on more senses at once.
Eyesight is obviously going to trick our brain in the decisions we make, since our brain is well used to connecting colours with specific meanings and the representation of a specific item. Having vanilla yoghurt look like a strawberry yoghurt will make our senses unreliable. Through this unit we have realised that whilst our senses are important in helping us understand the world around us, we need to evaluate the information we receive through experimental methods to see whether it is reliable or not.
We also explored how false inputs from our senses can impact our memories leading to debates on whether eye witness testimonies should be allowed and about all things that can influence our knowledge of the world around us. Olivia and Hugo Year Admissions Enquiry. If you have an enquiry related to admissions, please complete this form.
One could argue that I was now closer to the truth than I had been before. Through visual perception, I believe that it presents a greater dimension in understanding the appearance and nature of the onion. However, other people who performed the same experiment might be presented with a different description of the onion layer. The counter argument is that within the natural sciences particularly biology the structure of the subject acknowledges that our senses may distort the final results of experiments.
A significant fact is the use of reading error to compensate in areas where our visual sensation is absent. Without the inclusion of reading error and uncertainty values where appropriate, the experiment is considered to be less accurate. An interesting concept to consider is that perhaps our senses are designed for survival purposes rather than having been developed to perceive the truth. This would prove compatible if we compare our senses with that of other living creatures.
If you concentrate, you can observe your own on mind, your own thoughts. Is that the mind observing itself, or is there something beyond the mind? The reality outside of our minds is a possible definition of truth. Our senses provide the only link between our mind and reality.
Although acceptable in some circumstances that we can always trust our senses to obtain the truth, perhaps an equally strong argument is that we shouldn't. Rather, the essence of truth originates from pure reason, which is deductive and logical. I would agree that we need both sense perception and reason to fully comprehend the true nature of things. I believe that our sensory perception is important in obtaining the truth although given the fact that we should be completely aware of the capabilities and limitations of our sensory organs.
However, there are certain circumstances for which our interpretation of raw sensory data is inaccurate. Although we cannot always trust our senses to give us truth, sense perception is a medium for which we can conceive the true nature of things that are perceivable by us.
This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our International Baccalaureate Theory of Knowledge section. Get Full Access Now or Learn more. See related essays.
Senses in this case has succeeded in providing subjective truth, truth which is not uniform amongst people but invariable within individuals. However, it is shown through the use of Science that this particular 'truth' is not true at all and thus, we cannot completely trust our senses to give us truth if our perception of sensory information is false.
As seen above, we cannot allow our senses to give us truth. By the end of the play, Nora, the protagonist, leaves her husband to become independent. This is symbolical for the necessary change in the women's role in society, at the time. Through this, Ibsen was able to use art to portray a message to society, so, can art also be considered as a language? Create a free Team What is Teams? Learn more. Ask Question. Asked 7 years, 9 months ago. Active 7 years, 3 months ago. Viewed 2k times.
I routinely come across mini-epistemologies that start with something like: Cogito ergo sum. My senses are sufficiently reliable. I have started reading Antonio Damasio's Descartes' Error , which contains the following edition : A second idea in the book, then, is that the essence of a feeling may not be an elusive mental quality attached to an object, but rather the direct perception of a specific landscape: that of the body.
A salient example of mistaken confidence comes up in interpretation of religious experiences, which Keith Ward addresses in The Case for Religion : The best hypothesis seems to be that many people have experience of spiritual powers, but the specific information provided—whether in the form of visions or of 'heard' messages—depends very much upon cultural expectations, general background beliefs and the imaginative ability of the human mind to construct vast edifices of ontology from the merest hints of mystery.
Some specific questions: A. Improve this question. Community Bot 1. What we see externally has to still be interpreted internally, and what we see internally has to presented to the world outside. MoziburUllah: I completely agree. Michael Polanyi's Personal Knowledge offers some severe criticism of this account—well, Logical Positivism to be specific. The internet does tend to be haven for simplicity - or bowlderisation as it was once called.
Polanyis book looks interesting. I'd fully back his point about making knowledge impersonal. Your delusion is that you think Delusion is not Transcendental religious experience. And that's why you don't understand Descartes.
Maybe because our awareness of internal senses are not so extended. Add a comment. Active Oldest Votes. First time poster, so forgive me if I'm "doing it wrong. Improve this answer. Thanks for the response. A few things: 1 Your "blue, plastic cup" example is very simple; does your argument hold up under significantly more complex visual scenarios?
So your use of "simple reactions to internal stimuli" may be a mistaken way to speak about these issues. Oh yes, the example was a simple one, but I think that illustrates the point that there doesn't seem to be any evidence of these "internal" senses having any relevance beyond detecting the state of our physical body.
The brain's processing is largely irrelevant, at least in this case. Your brain may process blue in a way that I'd call purple, but blue is just an arbitrary label for a specific range of reflected light.
In the end, as long as we both call that color "blue" then it's all good. Interesting link. It seems like a complex way of saying that emotions and prior experience associated with those emotions affects decision-making.
Can't argue with that. I think I may be misinterpreting your question, though. Are you not suggesting that "internal" senses can be useful detectors of things outside of the self? If internal senses could be relied upon as accurate for anything other the state of the body itself, wouldn't that be a variety of ESP?
See, for example, moral intuitions. Or see In Search of Beauty. Feelings, moral intuition, and other "internal" senses generally do a good job detecting what's going on inside the body. This issue is that what evidence is there that something outside the body can be detected if there is no input from outside the body? Show 3 more comments. Dave Dave 4, 14 14 silver badges 46 46 bronze badges. It strikes me that pain can be a pretty reliable sense, and yet isn't one of the five senses.
In other words, is this apparent difference in reliability due to the specific examples chosen in conversation? Consider another active question, Can our sense of touch deceive us? Could I invert your argument by using sensory illusions and pain, or perhaps easier-to-process emotions?
The point is that most of the time, most of our external senses are reliable read this colloquially. Sensory illusions exist, but they are exceptions. The idea is that "un-reliable" subjective experiences are like always experiencing illusions, without ever or very rarely ever having experiences that are related to other components of reality. Is it not the case that at least some people can reliably predict what will make them happy, what will make them sad, what will produce pain, etc.?
Occasional errors are irrelevant, as you point out. Keith Ward says: The best hypothesis seems to be that many people have experience of spiritual powers, but the specific information provided—whether in the form of visions or of 'heard' messages—depends very much upon cultural expectations, general background beliefs and the imaginative ability of the human mind to construct vast edifices of ontology from the merest hints of mystery.
Mozibur Ullah Mozibur Ullah Yes, you're right - I've corrected it. Possibly I've focused too much on the quotation too much - as you're not really asking about religous phenomena as such. Descarte is after a theory of knowledge which is axiomatically based - hence is prescription. But one needn't accept axiomatics, nor theory; Surely an inner sense of the 'I' is required?
It's actually not clear to what extent this "inner sense of the 'I'" is required. Consider the many Eastern religions and mythicism which attempt to do away with the 'I'.
And in Christianity, there is a mysterious connection between 'I' and 'we', expressed most poignantly in the Trinity. Descartes probably couldn't have said 'I' without being embedded in a 'we'. So I think his Cartesian doubt project is very much suspect. Sure, it complicates Descartes position.
0コメント