The Senses

[Carl G.]

"2

With the highest respect, I except the name of Heraclitus. When the rest of the philosophic folk rejected the testimony of the senses because they showed multiplicity and change, he rejected their testimony because they showed things as if they had permanence and unity. Heraclitus too did the senses an injustice. They lie neither in the way the Eleatics believed, nor as he believed—they do not lie at all. What we make of their testimony, that alone introduces lies; for example, the lie of unity, the lie of thinghood, of substance, of permanence. "Reason” is the cause of our falsification of the testimony of the senses. Insofar as the senses show becoming, passing away, and change, they do not lie. But Heraclitus will remain eternally right with his assertion that being is an empty fiction. The “apparent” world is the only one: the “true” world is merely added by a lie."

How come the senses "do not lie"? How is their interpretation true? (that is, before they send the signals to the brain)

[War God]

How come the senses "do not lie"? How is their interpretation true? (that is, before they send the signals to the brain)

It is no interpretation, but an immediate effect. The same goes for their sending signals to the brain. But when the brain applies logic to these signals, there is falsification: namely, simplification. "A=A".

That the senses do not lie is one of Nietzsche's assertions...

[sparkinthedark]

That's right, there is no lie prior to the interpretation made by our conscience. The senses perceive things correctly, but they don't perceive ALL things, eg. we can't see without light...

[Frey]

But when the brain applies logic to these signals, there is falsification: namely, simplification. "A=A".

Also projection of cause and effect and other such mental clumsiness. The pre-Socratics - like Heraclitus, Empedocles, and Parmenides - knew all of this, but they were misunderstood and mistranslated by later rationalists.

I believe N. and H. are talking about something other than modern positive philosophy, which just grabs phenomena and wrings out 'facts' and 'probabilities'. There is only one reality, but most people will only ever sense a fraction of it. And Hadron Colliders and Boson Particles won't tune us in to it.

[sparkinthedark]

Also projection of cause and effect and other such mental clumsiness. The pre-Socratics - like Heraclitus, Empedocles, and Parmenides - knew all of this, but they were misunderstood and mistranslated by later rationalists.

Excellent! But what do you think causes this projection?

[Frey]

Thought, I suppose. One should still the mind and let things come on their own.

[Richard Meyer]

It is known in the medical world that if you smell different odours in each nostril the brain doesn't blend the scents, instead, your experience of smell alternates between the two. This nostril rivalry is similar to what happens when the ears are presented with different tones. I wonder how altered these two things are...

[Onasander]

senses are not your cognitive understanding of your sensory information- you can take this so far as saying it's a blank slate but I wouldn't. Hissing snake means bad for humans, Scorpions mean bad for any camel, loud, high pitch noises hurt, someone tipping over rebalances before they realize what is happening. In these cases, the OODA Loop makes a knee jerk reaction, taking the cognitive identity we associate with out of the loop- and we receive it after the decision has already been made. I sometimes screech out like a sissy girl, or jump with the adrenaline pumping if my situational awareness isn't kicked in to overthrow this impulse.

If I was to structure my understanding of the world on 'truth' by it's Judeo-Christian-Scientific ideal as something transcendental to perceived reality, I can see how Nietzsche would say only incoming, unassociated sensory information as the pnly legitimate truth in the same way Advaitians do- it's the only thing that effects your being in the present moment as to the legitimacy of reality of being.

All this said- I consider memories as a sense organ as well, and so have to disregard this emphasis on the present non-analytical. It's a very eastern subject- the emphasis on the present without reflection- I most certainly do use it as a Boyd enthusiast for looking at my identification and action-reaction loops- just have no need to limit myself to such a silly scope, especially as I don't believe in truth to begin with- only deception.