Why it is rational to have a theory about things not normal to reality

Renee Descartes for all of his flaws as a philosopher did make one of the points I live by. Essentially he argues that because your senses have deceived you to trust them completely would be foolish. This leads to his most famous position that "I think therefore I am". There are a few more things that lead to this but I'm mainly concerned about your senses fooling you.

Rather than turn this into an optical illusion post I know we are all familiar and can simply type "Optical illusion" into a search engine and get a seemingly unending supply of things that will fool us. I would like to take this further. I am going to make the assumption that if our senses can deceive us it follows that there can also be things we can not normally perceive with our senses. This can be tested and is shown to be the case using O2 as just one example.

Still following?

If we take into account that our senses can fool us, and that things can exist that we simply can not sense we must come to the same conclusion that as Mr. Descartes that the only thing we can really count on is in our mind, it is our thoughts. We don't know if what we sense on the outside is real and we certainly can't know what it is that we can't or don't sense.

Now here is where we get into the paranormal. Let us say that we see a person come up to us that is see through. An obvious ghost. It behaves in a certain way and acts in a certain way and you are able to sense it for a moment or so. We have established your senses can fool you. So this could be an illusion, an imagining. Or it could be that you have perceived something you are not normally able to perceive. Unfortunately all you can really know is that it is in your mind.

So what do you now know? You know that you perceived a thing not normally associated with the current knowledge paradigm. You know that your senses can fool you. But you also know things that you can't sense exist.

A person who conforms to a standard or rationality normally accepted would tell you that it is most rational to accept your senses can fool you and they were fooled. But wouldn't it be every bit as rational to accept that you have perceived something you can't normally perceive?

I think both lines are fully acceptable and one should not be shunned for the other. When we see a ghost, spirit, demon, goblin, gnome or anything outside of the normal it is my solid belief that we would be remiss to consider that only that it was an illusion, or to consider only that what we have seen exists outside of our normal perception.

When I have an experience of the paranormal sort, and I have had quite a few, I tend to categorize them in two places in my mind: This was an illusion and my subconscious is trying to tell me something, and (note not or) that I have been able to perceive a thing that my senses do not normally let me perceive.

To be totally intellectually honest with ourselves we need to accept this duality of our perceptions and our limitations. If we ignore either line we could miss something important about the nature of the universe or ourselves.

If you are lost and am not sure what I just said I did just say it is and is not at the same time.

Great post!

It's always fascinating to ponder whether our senses are giving us input which is incomplete, or if it is false altogether. Since we know that our senses are but constructs of the mind, it makes logical sense to come to either conclusion. Being that there is no way to differentiate between the two, i believe one must accept both theories to be possible in the event of a sensory anomaly.

This is a very intriguing subject, and I look forward to a great discussion.

Very good post. I enjoyed reading it. I feel the same as you. I can't remember exactly where I saw this, but it was suggested that we project reality. I guess it might be the "Holographic Universe" theory. I can't say I agree with all of it (particularly once it starts mingling with spirituality and new age speak), but what I find fascinating is that when we dream, many of us can see, smell, hear, touch, feel, and it 'feels' very real to us even though we are laying in bed with our eyes closed, nowhere near in war, or flying above mountains, or who knows what else. If all of our senses are interpreted by the brain through electrical signals, then it begs the question of what's really out there. Keep in mind that many animals and insects perceive and interpret this world differently from us. The human experience of earth is different from the bee's or the dog's perspective of the earth. Questions like that just make you wonder beyond belief.

reply to post by Jinglelord


So, you are saying that what you are saying isn't what you are saying, because if our senses are not completely 100% infallible and perfect at every moment, then we can't ever trust them, or trust them to convey meaningful information in any level of accuracy?

Or perhaps this is merely an extremely complex recipe for brownies?

Originally posted by CyberFawkes1105
Being that there is no way to differentiate between the two, i believe one must accept both theories to be possible in the event of a sensory anomaly.

This is exactly my point!

My mind reels often when someone holds a single viewpoint and feels like the other is a fool. I follow a guideline: If both people make sense they are either both right or both are wrong and the truth is somewhere in between.

To me the most interesting is when both are right. Thats similar to what I've read about the quantum theory where something is and isn't at the same time. I believe this is one of the universal truths people who really want to expand their understanding should focus on. When an idea or thing can be both right and wrong, when it is and it isn't. Excellent way to get your brain stretched!

reply to post by 2manyquestions


I've heard the holographic universe theory. I suppose anything is possible. I tend to think it is too complex to be real and lean towards Poe's simplest explanation: "All that we see or seem is but a bream within a dream..."

Which leads to your next point, if we perceive reality while dreaming and it feels the same what separates the dream from awake? How do we know that this reality we are communicating in is not simply a dream? Conversely how do we know that when we are dreaming we are not in our true state?

reply to post by ErtaiNaGia


I'm saying we can always trust our senses but we can never trust them either.To be functional in this world you have no choice to but to trust your senses and more or conform to the commonly accepted paradigm of reality. The word for people who don't or can't do that is crazy, insane, etc etc...

The above poster put it perfectly when he said that in the case of an anomaly we have to assume it could be either or.

But what I am really saying is I want to have my cake and eat it too!

Originally posted by Jinglelord
If we take into account that our senses can fool us, and that things can exist that we simply can not sense we must come to the same conclusion that as Mr. Descartes that the only thing we can really count on is in our mind, it is our thoughts.

Are you dismissing Descartes' "God is not a deceiver" argument for the reliability of our senses? If so, why? Since you want to argue for theories of the generally unobservable, God would be a great place to start. Descartes does not conclude that only our ideas are reliable, but instead that both ideas and the material world exist and they interact. Descartes definitely did not claim that the material world and our perception of it is inaccurate.

Originally posted by Jinglelord
We don't know if what we sense on the outside is real and we certainly can't know what it is that we can't or don't sense.

You need to define some terms if you're going to push this theory.

What do you mean by outside?
Perhaps there's nothing outside at all and all we experience are immaterial ideas, as argued by George Berkeley.

If something exists but is completely beyond our ability to sense, discover, infer, and/or the thing is otherwise incapable of making any tangible or intangible influence in our world, it's existence is irrelevant. Any theories about the undetectable things would be entirely unscientific and more unreliable than the least reliable sensory perception. If you had a theory of invisible gnomes that were really there but undetectable and I made up the Flying Spaghetti Monster who doesn't exist, your accurate theory and my fabricated falsehood would be indistinguishable as to their truth or falsity.

Originally posted by Jinglelord
Now here is where we get into the paranormal. Let us say that we see a person come up to us that is see through. An obvious ghost. It behaves in a certain way and acts in a certain way and you are able to sense it for a moment or so. We have established your senses can fool you. So this could be an illusion, an imagining. Or it could be that you have perceived something you are not normally able to perceive. Unfortunately all you can really know is that it is in your mind.

So what do you now know? You know that you perceived a thing not normally associated with the current knowledge paradigm. You know that your senses can fool you. But you also know things that you can't sense exist.

Ockham's Razor would slice up this problem in a hurry. If we have the cognitive science to explain why people sometimes see apparitions out of the corner of their eyes, to explain why someone might hallucinate, etc., it is unlikely that the fleeting vision is instead a complicated metaphysical realm just beyond perception (except on occasion). Descartes example of his senses deceiving him and your example of O2 are both examples of things that we can sense accurately if we have the scientific knowledge.

Originally posted by Jinglelord
A person who conforms to a standard or rationality normally accepted would tell you that it is most rational to accept your senses can fool you and they were fooled. But wouldn't it be every bit as rational to accept that you have perceived something you can't normally perceive?

It violates Ockham's Razor. You'd be required to postulate an alternate metaphysical realm that we can only rarely perceive, and thus opt for the most complicated and least likely explanation.

Originally posted by Jinglelord
I think both lines are fully acceptable and one should not be shunned for the other. When we see a ghost, spirit, demon, goblin, gnome or anything outside of the normal it is my solid belief that we would be remiss to consider that only that it was an illusion, or to consider only that what we have seen exists outside of our normal perception.

Are these two theories equally reasonable? A physicist believes that invisible forces — which can be supported mathematically and through experiments — govern the physical world. I believe that all physical motions, forces, and effects are actually personally moved by the divine, but totally invisible, spirit coalition of Elvis Presley, Tupac, and Kurt Cobain.

I guess I'm lucky in that whenever I've seen or experienced something, somebody else was either there at the same time and experienced the same phenomena; or was there at a different time, experienced the phenomena, didn't tell me, and then I experienced it, told them, and they confirmed that they had the same experience at a different time. It is one thing to distrust one's own senses, but when somebody else experiences the same event and describes matching sensations to mine, I consider it to be highly unlikely that we would both (or all) happen to have the same glitch at the same time, or the same glitch in the same place, without foreknowledge, or intention for it to occur. Mass hysteria requires foreknowledge of the intended phenomena or illness, and for that to be lacking to me indicates a real experience, as real as reality is anyway.

No longer a minor child, I don't worry much about getting chucked into the nut house against my will, for admitting that I see things that contemporary science says aren't there. I don't care if anyone believes me about these things, because I believe me, and, not to sound too selfish, mine are the only belief and reality I care about at the end of the day. Sure, I would love proof, solid and undeniable proof, that there are more things in heaven and earth etc., and to show everybody, but it's not necessary for my own satisfaction. I have my cake, and I eat the whole damn thing.

First, Ockham's Razor is like a blind man shooting at the world... and then there's the ricochet to consider. Descartes and his "I think, hence I am" isn't the same as "I am, hence I think". The Senses do indeed deceive, yet there are MORE then 5 senses. This might not have been considered by the Father of Modern Philosophy.

How many times has "Science" and "Scientist" been PROVEN deceived by their beliefs and mentality? MANY! This, many claim is part of the "scientific method"... yet the scientific method is what? It's PHILOSOPHY. Ockham's Razor is often ONLY Hobson's Choice.

How can I put this in a way that Descartes will understand?

I got it....

As Lazarus Long says.... "The early worm deserves the bird"...

and THIS in a world of "normal reality" in which so many claim, the early bird gets the worm.

Great thread.

Personally I don't trust the scientific method when it comes to metaphysics, why? It's based on axiomatic truths.

I don't subscribe to those axiomatic truths because I know from personal experience that consciousness is superior to matter.

Screw Occam's razor, it's a worthless tool when dealing with metaphysics.

That is all..

reply to post by hayek11


I am definitely ignoring and in a sense refuting the "God is not a deceiver" asumption Monsieur Descartes makes. I think when dealing with the unseen or seldom and not reliably seen this is an assumption that can only be made for convenience and to help keep you sane.

To be honest I haven't read the Treatise on the Method for many years and my copy is somewhere in a box I couldn't find so I'm operating on memory here. (I did look) But if my memory serves everything after "I think therefore I am" turned weak and everything up to that point was brilliant. To me this is because when his text is taken in providence we need to remember that anyone during that period proving God would get more popular support.

By outside I mean all those things we perceive to be interacting with. Essentially every input to your inner mind. And we can't say George Berkley was wrong. I would grant though that if you do want to function as a human you do need to make certain assumptions about the outside, IE the world your senses perceive.

My personal choice is to make assumptions based on my perceptions, my senses. From these assumptions I build in my head a construct of how I feel the outside world works and filter everything through this. This is what everyone does.

Now when I see a thing that is normally outside of my perception or is possibly a false perception I run it through my assumptions and decide how to react to it. What I am saying here is that with the assumptions I choose to make I acknowledge I do not have the tools to determine or a provable base assumption to determine if this perception matches the general reality perceived by everyone or has taken place only in my head.

And you're right I am leaving out a lot here. I'm not writing a Treatise on this I'm just sharing some basic ideas people can feel free to run with or not.

The problem with using Ockham's razor in general is it only works when you are attempting to make a determination within a pre-existing paradigm of reality. It is a fantastic tool when trying to determine many things generally perceived and repeatable. It works very well in the world where we can apply scientific method and our perceptions are consistent.

But we need to stop and think when seeing things outside of our understanding: Do we know enough to even be able to decide what is the simplest most direct path?

Physics is showing a lot of evidence for extra dimensions we can't perceive. If in the commonly accepted paradigm of reality we accept this to be true or gather our empirical evidence to show it. Our scientific understanding of hallucinations, dreams, and mis perceptions is very limited. All we can see is brain activity and make assumptions about what it means. We really know very little about the source of these dreams and hallucinations. Because of these facts it would be a mistake to try to apply Ockham's razor in this instance.

If you see the mighty Spaghetti monster in earnest and I see magical gnomes it is equally likely we are both hallucinating as it is that these things exist outside our minds. This is Schrodinger's cat, same principal.

reply to post by Serafine




reply to post by TheLaughingGod


The scientific method and Ockham's razor both work fine once you've made some basic assumptions. The problem is that we need to make base assumptions to understand our world, and be able to predict what will happen next. Modern science is pretty good at this. The problem is many of our base assumptions could be wrong and need to be questioned regularly which doesn't happen, and any alternate base assumptions are rejected and those who make them are mocked.

Any real science education will teach you what assumptions you're making and every professional scientist does know this. The differences stem from each person's commitment to these assumptions.

TheLaughingGod: We can assume the Emperor of humanity is dead, and just part of a giant machine functioning only as a beacon, or we can assume he is completely awake inside the husk on the golden throne. Both could be true at the same time. And in 40,000 years we might find out. (Sorry I couldn't resist this one I loved that game and often wish life would give me the time to play)

reply to post by Jinglelord


Yup, I understand the reason and the logic of Occam's razor, I'm not a science basher, as a Farseer I'm more apt to believe in science than the arcane cryptoscientists of the machine god, it's just it takes a back seat to metaphysics to me in certain situations(mainly mystical), other than the dismissal of mystical experiences I feel they're pretty much nailing it... but consciousness is a tricky matter, and from personal experience I don't have the luxury of taking their word for how it works.

The mon-keigh corpse emperor is dead and rotting..