According to the myth, Democritus pulled out his own eyes so as not to be decieved by his senses.
Could it be that our senses obscure our view of the world?
Could it be that what we see with our eyes makes it difficult to see with the eyes of our mind?
Surely our senses seem to be our only window of the world.
But many important discoveries, many important notions of philosophy and science were “discovered” not with the human eyes but with the eyes of the mind. For example the notion of “infinity” is something we “saw” with our mind. There is nothing “infinite” in the cosmos we see. In the same way the notion of “atoms” that Democritus “discovered” was not something “seen”. He saw them with the eyes of his mind and his mind alone. The catalogue can go on and on.
In a world of consciousness, we seem to rely too much on our senses.
Senses are the alarm system, the brain is the computer that decides good, bad or test.
We must depend upon our senses yet we do need to program more testing in our minds.
We can also be deceived by our other senses. Democritus might have realized that.
Perhaps it isn’t so much our senses which do this but how our individual minds interpret those views.
But then, there is Helen Keller who was deaf, blind and mute. I wonder what that says.
No, I don’t think so…otherwise we might not have evolved into needing eyes. Never throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Again, the problem is not our eyes but our interpretation of what we see. The problem is also in not asking what more is there to be seen and asking if we are indeed seeing what there is - and questioning more.
Well, there is intuition too but that can be as faulty as relying on our senses without seeing hearing feeling et cetera more and what we are seeing is all about.
.
I would say that they were discovered in harmony - the human mind with the senses. Everything is a process. I don’t think that these notions and discoveries came about by magic. Without sight, how could many scientic discoveries have been made?
I SEE many things in the cosmos which i might infer as being infinite even though they very well may not be.
I suppose that the question remains: Would Democritus have come to the notion of atoms if it hadn’t been for the use of his senses somewhere along the line?
Then again, there is still Helen Keller to consider. But she must have been read to, taught many things which made her wonder.
True, our senses tell us that there is a god yet it can’t be proven even by our senses.
But let’s not go throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Would you pluck out your eyes if you thought you could “see” better that way?
What we need is the optimal use of the faculties we have with priority on the later evolved faculties, i.e. the faculty of reason in the neo-cortical part of the brain.
I believe the senses can be compromised but not the faculty of reason.
For example, animals who lived in caves or blackish waters compromised their eyes and its neural circuit and emphasis is directed to the other senses.
So the senses are useful but reason is critical and most useful to humans to facilitate the individual’s survival, thus the group and species.
I wish that were actually true. But as you have demonstrated, the faculty of reason can quite easily be compromised by ego-centric passion or “the seven sins”, the children of presumption.
It is definitely the most useful faculty and it cut both ways
thus vulnerable to be abused [note psychopaths] so we need a critique [neural inhibitors] to keep it in check within its optimal limits, i.e. a Critique of [Pure and Conventional] Reason and effective neural tools to tweak the relevant neural circuits.
Actually what we “see” with the senses is constantly interpreted via the things we know. And these things can be things we know “a priori”, i.e. without having sensory input about them…
I really wouldn’t know. But I know of cases of inherently blind people who drew pictures or who lived a otherwise “normal life”. I wander what these people said about the great problems of philosophy… (I really do not know, I am just wandering)
Doesn’t it go something like; sees space [with visual sense], on a cloudy night sees space with no stars [concept of an abyss] then perceives ‘infinity’ then on and on to nirvana, god, divine infinite etc]?
But i take the point that the mind can ‘see’ better without eyes and isolate conceptual objects and ideas in a more singular focus. What’s also interesting is that our abstract ideas then turn out to be better at defining the world than that of the senses alone. If that is, we include mathematics & language not to mention ideas like infinity and the atom.
I am not so sure. How can you imagine something you have never ever seen before?
If you can, doesn’t that mean that your senses do not play such an important role in your thinking process as you thought?
One sense lost does not mean all are. Other senses become more acute and interpret the world. Blind bats navigate cave systems as certain fish blindly navigate, etc…
A blind human is only blind with their eyes. I recall a story that a person was given sight after an experimental surgery, they knew the people of their family and friends. Sound, smell and touch gave them a picture, sight enhanced the existing picture. We need our senses maybe not all but, we do need them.
Interesting topic. Democritus may have come up with the idea of atoms from his thinking and imagination, but surely he was influenced by his life’s experience of many big things breaking down into smaller parts. How can we say this did NOT figure into his thinking? I think the senses are an amazing part of our nature. Our sensory experience has been essential for everything we’ve achieved and it is perhaps the mind that fools us most of all.
Many illusions are not the fault of our senses – or at least not only our senses – but our minds. It is not the eyes that see what is not there, but the mind that extrapolates a false pattern from visual data and creates an interpretation of what exists (Source). Hallucinations are interesting cases as well: “The brain creates its own stimulation instead of relying on input from the five senses. In other words, the entire experience takes place right inside the brain” (Source). Add to this the tall list of cognitive biases.
(There are only 4 circles and none of them touch.)
In the end, I think the reality we face is that the mind and the senses are so fundamentally integrated, so developmentally co-dependent, that neither really work in isolation from the other.
(There are only 4 circles and none of them touch.)