Another false 'discovery' huh. The only main difference between blind people and sighted people are visuals.peacegirl wrote: ↑Sun Sep 07, 2025 12:43 am CHAPTER FOUR: WORDS, NOT REALITY
Our problem of hurting each other is very deep-rooted and begins with words through which we have not been allowed to see reality for what it really is. Supposing I stood up in one of our universities and said, “Ladies and gentlemen, I am prepared to prove that man does not have five senses, which has nothing to do with a sixth sense,” wouldn’t all the professors laugh and say, “Are you serious or are you being funny? You can’t be serious because everybody knows man has five senses. This is an established fact.” The definition of epistemology is the theory or science of the method and grounds of knowledge, especially with reference to its limits and validity. For the modern empiricist, the only way knowledge becomes ‘stamped’ onto the human conscience is through internal and external sensations, or through sense experience. But there is surprising evidence that the eyes are not a sense organ. The idea that man has five senses originated with Aristotle, and it has never been challenged. He did this just as naturally as we would name anything to identify it. But he made an assumption that the eyes functioned like the other senses, so he included them in the definition. This is equivalent to calling an apple, pear, peach, orange, and potato five fruit. The names given to these foods describe differences in substance that exist in the real world, but we certainly cannot call them five fruit since this word excludes the potato, which is not grown in the same manner as is described by the word fruit.
Believe it or not, the eyes, similar to the potato in the above example, were classified in a category to which they did not belong. We cannot name the organs with which we communicate with the outside world — the five senses, when they do not function alike. Aristotle, however, didn’t know this. His logic and renown delayed an immediate investigation of his theory because no one dared oppose the genius of this individual without appearing ridiculous for such audacity, which brought about almost unanimous agreement. To disagree was so presumptuous that nobody dared to voice their disagreement because this would only incur disdainful criticism. Everyone believed that such a brilliant individual, such a genius, had to know whereof he spoke. This is not a criticism of Aristotle or of anyone. But even today, we are still in agreement regarding a fallacious observation about the brain and its relation to the eyes. Those who will consider the possibility that you might have a discovery reveal their confusion by trying to nullify any value to it with this comment, as was made to me, “What difference does it make what we call them as a group, this isn’t going to change what we are. Whether we call them five senses, or four senses and a pair of eyes, is certainly not going to change them in any way.” However, if man doesn’t really have five senses, isn’t it obvious that just as long as we think otherwise, we will be prevented from discovering those things that depend on this knowledge for their discovery? Consequently, it does make a difference what we call them.
Just as my first discovery was not that man’s will is not free but the knowledge revealed by opening that door for a thorough investigation, so likewise, my second discovery is not that man does not have five senses but what significant knowledge lies hidden behind this door. Many years later, we have an additional problem that is more difficult to overcome because this fallacious observation has graduated dogmatically into what is considered genuine knowledge, for it is actually taught in school as an absolute fact, and our professors, doctors, etc. would be ready to take up arms, so to speak, against anyone who would dare oppose what they have come to believe is the truth without even hearing, or wanting to hear, any evidence to the contrary. I am very aware that if I am not careful, the resentment of these people will nail me to a cross, and they would do it in the name of justice and truth.
Do we even want to know at this point what his "surprising evidence" is supposed to be? This is from ILP
Do you even know what a sense organ is? All our sense organs collect information about the past. The eyes aren't any different. You experince a reconstruction of the past in your mind, but you experience it in the present. Vision, sound, touch, smell, taste.Peacegirl wrote:That might be what science believes is happening, but this author refutes that we see the past at all. He claims that light travels at 299,792,458 meters per second, and it takes 8 minutes for light from the sun to reach the eye, but once light is present, the eyes see objects in real time, not delayed time. He says that the eyes are not a sense organ like the other 4 because no images on the waves of light are being carried to the eye. You will have to accept his premise that the past is in the mind only (if you want to move forward) and that nothing from the past CAUSES the present, which is a problem in the way determinism is presently defined.
Now it's true that some self-proclaimed determinists (like AIMike.. khm..) are stupid enough to believe that the past causes the present, when actual determinism has no direction. You can start from the past, you can start from the present, you can start from the future, you can do all at once and neither, it doesn't matter. What matters is that there is a chain of causality in time. But this is equally true for all sense organs and also everything else.
And in that chain, you do see a reconstruction of the past in your mind, not of the present. But you experience the reconstruction in the present. Your father was confused, and so you are confused too. You're just incorrectly conflating time (dividing existence into past-present-future) and timelessness (there is only the eternal now), but they are two different takes. There, you're welcome again.
