Question

Some things I discussed in my philosophy course today:

1. Is what you're seeing true? Does the table you see there exists? (I was thinking whether it was still).
- Why do we see optical illusions in optical illusions?
- How much of the wavelength spectrum can we see?
- How much of the sound spectrum can we hear?
- Same for taste, smell, and touch
- Are we really touching something?
- Is our bodies really making physical contact with our chairs? Are the molecules touching each other?
- Are the photo-receptors our eyes pick up the same as what our brain sees?
- Third eye in animals and humans, pineal glands
- Extra senses in animals and humans, including sensing electro-magnetic forces.
2. Is this table mostly solid, or mostly space?
- What percentage is of it is space?
- If you were to blow an atom up 1,000,000 times, it'll be the size of a melon. But what percentage of that atom is space? (Can you see the electrons and neutrons?)
3. Do humans have electricity? Do humans emit electro-magnetic fields?
- measurement of human's electro-magnetic fields during meditation, martial-arts, QiGong exercises
4. Metaphysics - study of abstract things, what is mind and matter?
5. Einstein's Time Relativity Theory - place 2 atomic clocks, one closer to earth, one further from earth, after a period of time bring them together. Are they the same time?

Literally everything in this class blew my mind, I thought I'd share it with you guys.

Last class we talked about how dictators are able fool their people using terms discussed from Orwell's 1984. (2+2=5, newspeak, double-think, Big Brother, and Room 101).

Answer 1

Wow. Your philosophy course sounds like it is right up my alley.

Answer 2

1. Is what you're seeing true?

The thought which begins the process of resolving the multiplicity of questions that arise from this, is that it's all perceptually based. We perceive rocks through our idea of rocks, which is built upon all the experiences associated with this sensory stimuli.

We see optical illusions due to the constraints placed on the functionality of our eyes, as well as our other senses. This fact is alluded to with your examples of the wavelength and sound spectrum, as well as the other senses. This leads into the posed query of do you ever actually touch anything? To touch is to make contact, in that the surfaces of both entities have no distance between them. This is at least, the common (mis)conception of what touching is. The reality (as disclosed here: https://futurism.com/why-you-can-never-actually-touch-anything) is that it's essentially (basically) just your electrons interacting with entity B's electrons.

Notice how I defined what touching is, which is how you of course resolve your next question.

2. Is this table mostly solid, or mostly space?

What is a table, except an elevated surface supported by legs. By that definition, it's easy to take on the former definition, that it is 'mostly solid.' Yet the fact that it is supported by legs, instead of walls, makes all the difference. Since a surface supported by walls, is a counter, or an 'island.' Walls of course, take up more space. But this is where you then step into the question of 'what is space?" You take the same reductionist approach of thinking of space as visible emptiness, or an obscure realm without objects. One definition clearly suits the table, and one clearly suits the counter.

You can play the game again and again, no doubt it will likely reach age at some point. But the game is interesting for the reason you began with. Basically, what is truth? As I discussed in my PSY 212 class, Research Methods, scientists have long grappled with "What is truth?" And there are many conclusions and opinions. The reality that becomes of us, is that no one knows what the actual truth is. Our perceptions are anointed with our subjectivity. Even if we do not let our emotions or experiences betray us, what of our subconscious and/or unconscious mind? What of the differences between our sensory systems and other life forms? Is a pebble a hill, to an ant? Or is it a mountain? Does the fact that we have conscientiousness give us the superiority to claim that it is, in fact, a pebble? Do we even have a say in what actually is, the truth? What of our definition of conscientiousness?

To resolve this, I recommend this element to add to your definition of truth: we make the best possible approximation of it, to the extent of our faculties and capacities. No one will ever know what a world without all subjectivity will look like. But there's nothing we can realistically do about that so worry not. If your mind thinks worry yes, then recall that game, and how it can go on forever. And I believe that the end of that game lies in the consideration that to end that game, you must be something that isn't human - that isn't you.

Answer 3

Your next couple of questions are interesting not because of their answer, but because of their implications. Of course, the human body has electricity as you said. In consideration of my previous statement, we take the culturally normalized definition of electricity, then look beyond that. One interesting fact is that since the human body has electricity, sharks which can sense electric fields and currents through something called electroreception, can track us without smell. As stated in this cool study, this is how sharks can navigate, being in touch with Earth's magnetic fields (http://www.himb.hawaii.edu/ReefPredator/Shark%20Magnet.htm).

And perhaps in that, is a way to hammer closer to that elusive truth. To not only include our approximations derived from the extent of our faculties and capacities, but also that of other species. It seems apt to consider how other creatures interact with the natural world, in order to discern what the natural world really and truly is.

Developing the notion of electricity in another direction, one could begin to argue that humans are in fact, robots. Driven by electric signals, our neural network is simply another form of circuitry, with our genes and experiences (nature and nurture), being another form of programming.

Your notion of metaphysics and the question thereafter is a bit broad, but as for your mention of Einstein I've heard of that thought experiment before. It's quite fascinating, and boils down again to perceptions, and definitions. Things can get even more fun if a black hole or some other celestial object is involved.

Lastly, dictators are those people who understand people well. How they work, nurtured by their genes, and taking the nature of their sociocultural environment. They can play that game, of definitions in a different manner. One with self serving and malevolent intentions. Largely what you see in Orwell's 1984 was the Party controlling the spoken language (definitions), and thus, how people thought. And if you can control what people think, then you have truly brought them to heel. And once you've arrived there, what's the point of human conscientiousness? Are they even considered conscious? If every thought is driven by a singular force, a governmental figure, do they even exist?

Freedom of Speech dudes, keep it lit.
#FreeHongKong

Answer 4

I wrote this way late but conscientiousness -> consciousness lol

Answer 5

Hehe. your comments are quite realistic and make perfect sense. Kudos to you.