Hi All!! Welcome to our very own class blog. Just a reminder that you are asked to each start your own thread, and contribute a minimum of 15 responses throughout your classmates blogs. Be sure that your responses are polite, academic, meaningful and link to course curriculum. Any questions or issues, please email me!!
Ms D
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Both Russell and Kant, talk of perceiving the physical world through our senses. Russell creates the term "sense data" to describe the relationship between appearance and reality. Sense data is knowledge we gain through our senses in reaction to an object. Taking in to account this theory, do you believe that "sense data" can contain truth, or is it just a subjective way of viewing objects through our sense. Hypothesize about what "sense data" means to you, and contemplate its validity.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWho is gummbo?
ReplyDeleteMs.Darby?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe underlying question here is, "what is truth?" In my opinion "Sense data" contains truth because knowledge is information the beholder believes to be true. I see the only logical definition of truth being as Kierkegaard wrote, "Truth is Subjectivity." If there is an objective truth, the only way to see it is to transcend our subjectivity.
ReplyDelete'Sense data' is a subjective experience, though there are universal properties to how we define these experiences on a common whole. For example, G.E. Moore's truth is described in, 'here is a hand', which is a common attribute of the human body and physical world. Moore has his own subjective 'sense data' experience of it, however; others can experience his hand through 'sense data', and also can perceive the truth of their own hands. Similarly to the truth of math, the external world becomes less subjective if there are enough common perceptions of it. Therefore, 'sense data' can contain truth within experinces on a common whole.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIf a "common" perception of the world external to ourselves exists, we can't know it. If there is a "common" way of perceiving the world, it by no means can cheapen a less "common" perception. Regardless of the existence of an objective reality, everything can be perceived in infinite ways; there is truth in all perceptions of existence if the subject believes so. So while I believe that my hands exist, if someone else can't perceive me or my hands, in their reality it might be just as absurd to say that I have hands, as it is here to say that I do not.
ReplyDeleteMuch like what Mitch is saying, Kant's theory on each of our filters (i.e. our minds, our "black boxes") shows us that there is a near infinite amount of perceptions of the world. I think the best way for anyone or anything to come close to achieving objective truth is through a sort of collective consciousness.
ReplyDeleteIf anyone is a fan of Star Trek (...), these beings called "Borgs" have such a thing, where their minds are all connected together and their reality is the sum of all the Borg individuals added together.
However, as long as individuals exist, each with distinct "black boxes", there will always exist separate realities that will never be identical.
If the beholder is the only one who can obtain truth, then 'sense data' is completely subjective. However; I believe that we do have SIMILAR sense data perceptions, which contain truths. If you touch a hot stove and your nerves have no reaction to the heat, does that mean the stove is not hot? No, as your skin will burn from the heat over time. We can only subjectively view the external world, but there are common experiences of it. If someone cannot perceive your hand, then it may not exist in their reality but that does not mean it is not perceived by yourself or by others. I know you have a hand and I'm sure our class can see that you have a hand. All of our 'sense data' has shown with common perception that you do, yes, indeed, have a hand, which adds truth to the matter. Kants theory opens infinite ways of experiencing the external world but, no matter the simplicity or comlexity, there can still be a common perception of it.
ReplyDeleteI don't know if "sense data" contain Truth!So What is Truth? who created Truth?
ReplyDeleteMany philosophers have attacked Kant et al about their use of the term "sense data" by claiming that it is unnecessarily complicates our explanation of knowledge and reality. What purpose does the term "sense data" have and why have most us of us just accepted it as a legitimate concept?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, "sense data" is the perfect term/concept to describe our 'explanations of knowledge and reality'. After all, we've come to all the conclusions using our senses, right? Just like G.E. Moore used his hand as an example, just like our perception of the world: the way we see things, why we see them in that particular way and not another and why others may see it differently - could also be presented as a "black box". These are all, in a way just another collations of the same term. Which is, "sense data". All in all, I think it's been accepted as a legitimate concept simply because it is a practical and self explanatory term.
ReplyDeleteP.s. Ms. Darby, on behalf of a few frustrated students in our class, I ask you to please reply to the e-mails we've sent you. ;]
Alice.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe purpose of sense data is such that it seeks to provide an explanation for the relationship between appearance and reality. With its existence, we are able to explain the likes of mental illusions, particularly hallucinations. And, the legitimacy of sense data as a concept seems from this need to explain seemingly inexplicable phenomena.
ReplyDeleteThe typical philosophical example is that of a straight stick submerged in water. The stick is undoubtedly straight, and one is aware of this fact and accordingly the fact that the water is twisting the image of the stick such that it appears as bent—an illusion. Jules Ayers posits that the mere “possibility of sensory illusions shows that it is possible that we are aware of illusions never being real objects”. And certainly, if we know that a perception is an illusion, then we know that it is not real—and we know that we are viewing the stick through a veil—through the use of sense data. For the stick is the same, and we know that to be so, but for some reason or another, it has changes appearance under the depths of the water. This observation justifies Jules Ayers’ assertion that we are “directly aware of non-physical things”. Whether or not that thing is sense data is another matter entirely.
Alternatively, Hume’s assertion that non-demonstrative reasoning stems from induction, and follows from past experience must be considered because of the conundrum that is proving the reasoning behind believing in sense data. If sense data is non-physical, then how can we demonstratively reason it to exist? We must rely on inferences based on past experience of sense data—and thus we enter a chain of circular logic because we trying to prove the existence of one theory from inferences gathered from past experiences of essentially the same theory.
Obviously, the reason why most of us have so eagerly accepted “sense data” as a legitimate concept is because of its plausibility, as demonstrated by the stick water experiment. Though the experiment itself doesn’t absolutely prove sense data, it does do well to prove that illusion exists. It asks the implicit question of how illusion exists and what makes it so. Sense data answers this question well.
in a way i do agree that sense data can complicate our explanation of reality and knowledge, because most of what we, or at least i, know is throught our senses. so if the information that we are collecting through our senses is being distorted then obviously thats going to complicate things, for example if you hallucinate you see things that are not actually there. what if all of our senses are hallucinations, or are over exaggerated from what things really are? if this is the case then we might be liveing in an over exaggerated, psychedelic world being constructed in our minds. but that is just a 'what if' because im sure we are not all living in worlds like that.
ReplyDeletestefan
We perceive the world using our senses; what we realise through our perception is sense data. Without an understanding of this term, my understanding of reality would be quite a bit more difficult to explain. This is because I believe that my perception of "that which can be met" and "that which is presented" to me in space, as Moore would say, or that which is "external" to myself, as Kant would say, what I perceive through my senses, is definitely part of reality and how could I explain it without the use of the concept of sense data?
ReplyDeleteThe phrase "sense data" itself dictates that the external world cannot be known to us for certain. When one uses this phrase, one also acknowledges the existence of the "black box", and its erratic nature, which in turn confirms that the world is a certain way because it is PERCEIVED to be that way.
ReplyDeleteEven our sense of self is determined by OTHER people. If every single person I have met tended to my every whim and wish, I would naturally come to think I somehow transcend their status. I would even go as far as to say that what we would call our "self identity", is rarely what we establish through our own personal growth and development, but rather a conglomeration of sense data, or proofs we gather throughout our lives. Once sufficient evidence is provided and we are content with the result or are unwilling/unable to alter it, we accept it and proclaim it as our selfhood.
I believe that sense data is only a subjective way of viewing objects through our senses. Sense data to me is what I intrepret reality or the "physical world" to be. I do not necessarily think that sense data can be considered valid considering it is subjective and it is possible that it is different for every person. If Kant is correct in his theory that everyone sees the same thing in the physical world differently, then everyone's sense data would be different as well, and therefore there is no guarantee that what we are seeing is valid or even real.
ReplyDeleteI believe "sense data" is the only way for us to see things as it is then it gets interpreted in our mind with explanations which is different from one another!
ReplyDeleteOne might argue that the reason we can learn things without prior foundation, is not because of other beings who have foundations built on those prior, but is because a deeper part of my being releases certain information to me as time goes on (or something like this); it might do this through what I perceive to be entities separate from me and I gather this information through what I believe to be my senses. This idea of a “deeper part” of oneself, a subjectivity that we are not necessarily conscious of but is part of us, in us, is, I believe, similar to or the same as the idea of God. So is that what we are proposing here? That there is a transcendent being which is the source of reality?If we get caught up on transcendence and ascertaining knowledge, we have no time for things that actually matter. I will never know the answers for certain to the questions of epistemology, yet it might help us all to discuss love, or values. I go to work everyday so that I can have a roof over my head and a jacket on my back in this cold winter. This is the reality I live in, I want to make the most of. I much rather get a smile on my face while talking to a pretty girl than freeze my ass off in the cold asking myself, “do my senses deceive me?” “What can I know for certain?” “Blah blah blah?”As Kant believed, we cannot comprehend the transcendent because it is beyond our scope of experience. Through trying to transcend our existence, we try to exceed our limits. Transcendence is a paradox.
ReplyDeleteIn theory, sense data are characteristics and qualities we absorb from objects in perception. Whether or not sense data actually exists in perception is debatable. Consider that an orange has observable characteristics: orange and round. If we were to strongly throw the orange at another’s face—would that person always perceive the orange to be orange and round? If the orange is within their vicinity of sight, and they perceive it—even for a second—should the images associated with sense data not appear within their minds? Following the logic of sense data as an absolute in all cases, then it should. But say the person just saw an orange blur? Or just glimpsed the orange for a fraction for a second and caught nothing of its colour of shape? What of Russel’s theory then?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI do not believe that commonality determines truth. Commonality implies certainty on an issue, but it doesn’t equate to truth. Subjectivity is not necessarily truth nor it is necessarily falsity—but knowing this fact means one cannot assume, as Mitch asserts, that “there is truth in all perceptions of existence if the subject believes so”. Being unaware to determine the absolute truth about the objective world doesn’t mean we should simply believe whatever we wish to believe—that is nonsensical and akin to answering a seemingly unsolvable question with any answer and expecting to get full marks simply because we do not yet know the answer. The answer, whether it be undiscovered or unsolvable or unreachable, and that answer cannot be substituted for anything else.
ReplyDeleteHaha. That last post hardly made sense.
ReplyDeleteI failed hard.
What I meant to say propose was something akin to a scenario where a teacher hands a student a yet to be solved math problem, and that student must find that answer. If Mitch purposes that the truth is somehow subjective, and that all answers are right simply because no answer has been proven right (yet), then we have a problem. I hope that made sense.
Logical Fallacy: Straw Man Argument.
ReplyDeleteWhat I meant to illustrate in my last post, is that we can all talk circles about reality being subjective, but we can’t ever prove or disprove it. Why question our exist? I think we should take our heads out of the clouds and move this blog in the direction of metaphysics. Why does it matter if our perceived reality is in our heads or not? Either way, we still have feelings, wishes, dreams, fears, etc. I propose that the following posts should either enlighten the class on why we should care about these transcendent questions, or confront the issues we face in whatever reality we exist in.