Page 1 of 1

Question 6: Are the five sense all there is to it?

Posted: Sun Jan 16, 2005 2:24 pm
by Mr. P
In writing about modernization in the Western World, Armstrong points out that some scientists and scholars came to embrace the principle that "the only information upon which we could safely rely came from our five senses," and "anything else was pure fantasy". In their view, she writes, "[p]hilosophy, metaphysics, theology, art, imagination, mysticism, and mythology were all dismissed as irrelevant and superstitious because they could not be verified empirically."Does your own experience of life prompt you to agree or disagree with this point?Mr. P. Edited by: Chris OConnorĀ  at: 10/30/05 10:18 pm

The five senses and the pursuits of the sub conscious.

Posted: Sun Jan 16, 2005 3:38 pm
by Mr. P
So this IS where Dissident gets much of his world view!!! I hate to say it...but it is a shame he decided to leave during this particular discussion.I believe that science, policy and any facet of existence that will directly effect the population as a whole should be decided and implemented solely on empirical evidence and a pragmatic, secular POV. However, I do not discount art, philosophy, imagination and mythology, as mentioned in this question, as irrelevant to our existence and our understanding of it all.We need to separate these two paradigms and realize that one really has no business meddeling in the affairs of the other.Mr. P.

Re: Question 6:Are the five sense all there is to it?

Posted: Wed Jan 26, 2005 11:11 pm
by Jeremy1952
A feeling is a real feeling, be it awe, fear, love, or lust. It may or may not coincide with other real things. There is no need to disdain art for rationality; philosophy I'm not too sure about; theology is the most useless excercise ever invented by humankind. When it comes to practical decisions, though, evidence is the way to go. If you make yourself really small, you can externalize virtually everything. Daniel Dennett, 1984

Re: Question 6:Are the five sense all there is to it?

Posted: Thu Jan 27, 2005 10:05 pm
by Mr. P
Nothing that has evolved with us and made us survive to the point we are at is 'useless', IMHO. Theology grew from simple faith and the misinterpretation of the world around our ancestors. It helped us along. It was a 'miss', but a 'miss' that helped our forebears cope and survive.It is time to let it go, now that we have a better understanding of our universe and realize that it was just a pipe dream. I think we are better than that now.Mr. P. The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.I came to get down, I came to get down. So get out ya seat and jump around - House of PainHEY! Is that a ball in your court? - Mr. PI came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy Piper

Re: Question 6:Are the five sense all there is to it?

Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2005 3:13 pm
by Swamy Maximus
What about the intellect!!!Leibniz was right... about that!

Re: Question 6:Are the five sense all there is to it?

Posted: Fri Oct 07, 2005 11:36 am
by Keith and Company
Just as a point of interest, somewhere i saved a list of the 19 senses humans have, to some degree (some better than others).SENSE -- TYPE OF INPUT Sight -- Visible Light Hearing -- Vibrations in the Ear Touch -- Tactile Contact Taste -- Chemical Molecular Smell -- Olfactory Molecular Balance -- Kinaesthetic Geotropic Vestibular -- Repetitious Movement Temperature -- Molecular Action Pain -- Nociception Eidetic Imagery -- Neuroelectrical Image Retention Magnetic -- Ferromagnetic Orientation Infrared -- Long Electromagnetic Waves Ultraviolet -- Short Electromagnetic Waves Ionic -- Airborne Ionic Charge Vomeronasal -- Pheromonic Sensing Proximal -- Physical Closeness Electrical -- Surface Charge Barometric -- Atmospheric Pressure Geogravimetric -- Sensing Mass DifferencesI took issue with critics of early astronomers that said that the moons of a distant planet could not have any effect on human spirituality, therefore they don't exist. It's one thing to say that art, love, or other subjective things cannot be empirically measured, therefore they can't be used. It's another to say that they don't exist.For example, if every human were born with an LED display of the strength and object of their affection, child placement issues would be simplified.Daddy loves Timmy with a reading of 8 heartjoules, while Mommy loves Timmy with a reading of 12 megaheartjoules. Well, not simplified, maybe. They'd bitch about whether womanlove was on the same scale as manlove...and there's still the question about who's BEST for the boy... never mind.But anyway, there's no rational way to completely discount the effects of emotions, even if we can't measure them. The number of of pushups i did in boot camp when i was alone was drastically less than what i did for the final physical exam, when the rest of the guys were cheering me on. Keith's Place

Re: Question 6: Are the five sense all there is to it?

Posted: Tue Jul 19, 2011 11:17 am
by Interbane
The default position if you will for humanity always has been to experience, spirits, fairies etc.
People who do not experience such may well have something wrong with their brains.
The default explanation for these experiences is that they all share in common being birthed from the human mind. You used the word empirical. Your anecdotal experience is not empirical. There were likely thousands of controls that you didn't "control". It's not a cop out to say that people hallucinate and see things which aren't real. It's a fact. It's also an explanatory hypothesis that is far more likely than to believe that all these scattered fantastical(and sometimes mutually exclusive) beliefs are byproducts of the human brain.
The traditional view from neuroscience is that consciousness is something that arises from the brain, however after 150 years of modern neuroscience there is no conclusive evidence for this assumption
Why do you say there is no conclusive evidence? There is indeed conclusive evidence, from all across the world. Each and every thought and action various subjects had in numerous experiments had a corresponding neural activity that matched in intensity, type, and duration. It's conclusive enough that if you want to claim there are some "thoughts" we have which aren't the manifest effect of a group of neurons, you need to provide a great deal of evidence.
If you awoke one night to see a Non human being made out of light standing over you, talking to you then after such an experience you would never claim the physical world is the only reality again.
Your conclusion is non-sequitur. You see a glowing person. You rule out hallucinations of all types, coincidental phenomena, psychological phenomena, and immediately believe this apparition must be supernatural. It's always the same sloppy conclusion building.